Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28854966›Full record

Observational studyEuropean journal of medical research2017

Using automated texture features to determine the probability for masking of a tumor on mammography, but not ultrasound.

Lothar Häberle, Carolin C Hack, Katharina Heusinger, Florian Wagner, Sebastian M Jud, Michael Uder, Matthias W Beckmann, Rüdiger Schulz-Wendtland, Thomas Wittenberg, Peter A Fasching

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in European journal of medical research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Lothar HäberleUniversity Breast Center for Franconia, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Erlangen, Germany. lothar.haeberle@uk-erlangen.de.
Carolin C HackUniversity Breast Center for Franconia, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Erlangen, Germany.
Katharina HeusingerUniversity Breast Center for Franconia, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Erlangen, Germany.
Florian WagnerFraunhofer Institute for Integrated Circuits IIS, Erlangen, Germany.
Sebastian M JudUniversity Breast Center for Franconia, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Erlangen, Germany.
Michael UderUniversity Breast Center for Franconia, Institute of Radiology, Comprehensive Cancer Center EMN, Erlangen University Hospital, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Matthias W BeckmannUniversity Breast Center for Franconia, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Erlangen, Germany.
Rüdiger Schulz-WendtlandUniversity Breast Center for Franconia, Institute of Radiology, Comprehensive Cancer Center EMN, Erlangen University Hospital, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Thomas WittenbergFraunhofer Institute for Integrated Circuits IIS, Erlangen, Germany.
Peter A FaschingUniversity Breast Center for Franconia, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Erlangen, Germany.
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg · DEComprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen · DEFraunhofer Institute for Integrated Circuits · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTumors in radiologically dense breast were overlooked on mammograms more often than tumors in low-density breasts. A fast reproducible and automated method of assessing percentage mammographic density (PMD) would be desirable to support decisions whether ultrasonography should be provided for women in addition to mammography in diagnostic mammography units. PMD assessment has still not been included in clinical routine work, as there are issues of interobserver variability and the procedure is quite time consuming. This study investigated whether fully automatically generated texture features of mammograms can replace time-consuming semi-automatic PMD assessment to predict a patient's risk of having an invasive breast tumor that is visible on ultrasound but masked on mammography (mammography failure).

methodsThis observational study included 1334 women with invasive breast cancer treated at a hospital-based diagnostic mammography unit. Ultrasound was available for the entire cohort as part of routine diagnosis. Computer-based threshold PMD assessments ("observed PMD") were carried out and 363 texture features were obtained from each mammogram. Several variable selection and regression techniques (univariate selection, lasso, boosting, random forest) were applied to predict PMD from the texture features. The predicted PMD values were each used as new predictor for masking in logistic regression models together with clinical predictors. These four logistic regression models with predicted PMD were compared among themselves and with a logistic regression model with observed PMD. The most accurate masking prediction was determined by cross-validation.

resultsAbout 120 of the 363 texture features were selected for predicting PMD. Density predictions with boosting were the best substitute for observed PMD to predict masking. Overall, the corresponding logistic regression model performed better (cross-validated AUC, 0.747) than one without mammographic density (0.734), but less well than the one with the observed PMD (0.753). However, in patients with an assigned mammography failure risk >10%, covering about half of all masked tumors, the boosting-based model performed at least as accurately as the original PMD model.

conclusionAutomatically generated texture features can replace semi-automatically determined PMD in a prediction model for mammography failure, such that more than 50% of masked tumors could be discovered.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsFalse Negative ReactionsFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMammographyMiddle AgedUltrasonographyMammographic densityMammography screeningMaskingRisk predictionSensitivityTexture analysisVariable selection

Identifiers

PMID28854966
PMCPMC5577694
OpenAlexW2752263400

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.