Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30072292›Full record

ArticleAcademic radiology2019

Convolutional Neural Network Based Breast Cancer Risk Stratification Using a Mammographic Dataset.

Richard Ha, Peter Chang, Jenika Karcich, Simukayi Mutasa, Eduardo Pascual Van Sant, Michael Z Liu, Sachin Jambawalikar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Academic radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. A Review of Artificial Intelligence in Breast Imaging.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2024
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Richard HaResearch and Education, Breast Imaging Section, Department of Radiology, Columbia University Medical Center, 622 West 168th Street, PB-1-301, New York, NY 10032. Electronic address: rh2616@columbia.edu.
Peter ChangUC San Francisco Medical Center, Department of Radiology, 505 Parnassus Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94143.
Jenika KarcichDepartment of Radiology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York 10032.
Simukayi MutasaDepartment of Radiology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York 10032.
Eduardo Pascual Van SantColumbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York 10032.
Michael Z LiuDepartment of Medical Physics, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York 10032-3784.
Sachin JambawalikarDepartment of Medical Physics, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York 10032-3784.

Funding

Biomedical Imaging for Clinician ScientistsT32EB001631 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI THOMAS M LINK · 2005 to 2026
$5.6M
CAPRI: Columbia Cancer Training Program for Resident-InvestigatorsR38CA231577 · NCI · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI CREW, KATHERINE D, SCHWARTZ, GARY K · 2018 to 2021
$1.4M
NCI NIH HHS R38 CA231577NIBIB NIH HHS T32 EB001631
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

RATIONALE AND

objectivesWe propose a novel convolutional neural network derived pixel-wise breast cancer risk model using mammographic dataset. MATERIALS AND

methodsAn institutional review board approved retrospective case-control study of 1474 mammographic images was performed in average risk women. First, 210 patients with new incidence of breast cancer were identified. Mammograms from these patients prior to developing breast cancer were identified and made up the case group [420 bilateral craniocaudal mammograms]. The control group consisted of 527 patients without breast cancer from the same time period. Prior mammograms from these patients made up the control group [1054 bilateral craniocaudal mammograms]. A convolutional neural network (CNN) architecture was designed for pixel-wise breast cancer risk prediction. Briefly, each mammogram was normalized as a map of z-scores and resized to an input image size of 256 × 256. Then a contracting and expanding fully convolutional CNN architecture was composed entirely of 3 × 3 convolutions, a total of four strided convolutions instead of pooling layers, and symmetric residual connections. L2 regularization and augmentation methods were implemented to prevent overfitting. Cases were separated into training (80%) and test sets (20%). A 5-fold cross validation was performed. Software code was written in Python using the TensorFlow module on a Linux workstation with NVIDIA GTX 1070 Pascal GPU.

resultsThe average age of patients between the case and the control groups was not statistically different [case: 57.4years (SD, 10.4) and control: 58.2years (SD, 10.9), p = 0.33]. Breast Density (BD) was significantly higher in the case group [2.39 (SD, 0.7)] than the control group [1.98 (SD, 0.75), p < 0.0001]. On multivariate logistic regression analysis, both CNN pixel-wise mammographic risk model and BD were significant independent predictors of breast cancer risk (p < 0.0001). The CNN risk model showed greater predictive potential [OR = 4.42 (95% CI, 3.4-5.7] compared to BD [OR = 1.67 (95% CI, 1.4-1.9). The CNN risk model achieved an overall accuracy of 72% (95%CI, 69.8-74.4) in predicting patients in the case group.

conclusionNovel pixel-wise mammographic breast evaluation using a CNN architecture can stratify breast cancer risk, independent of the BD. Larger dataset will likely improve our model.

Indexed as

Neural Networks, ComputerBreastBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMammographyMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesRisk Assessmentbreast cancer riskbreast densityCNN

Identifiers

PMID30072292
PMCPMC8114104

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.