The effect of variable labels on deep learning models trained to predict breast density

Purpose: High breast density is associated with reduced efficacy of mammographic screening and increased risk of developing breast cancer. Accurate and reliable automated density estimates can be used for direct risk prediction and passing density related information to further predictive models. Expert reader assessments of density show a strong relationship to cancer risk but also inter-reader variation. The effect of label variability on model performance is important when considering how to utilise automated methods for both research and clinical purposes. Methods: We utilise subsets of images with density labels to train a deep transfer learning model which is used to assess how label variability affects the mapping from representation to prediction. We then create two end-to-end deep learning models which allow us to investigate the effect of label variability on the model representation formed. Results: We show that the trained mappings from representations to labels are altered considerably by the variability of reader scores. Training on labels with distribution variation removed causes the Spearman rank correlation coefficients to rise from $0.751\pm0.002$ to either $0.815\pm0.006$ when averaging across readers or $0.844\pm0.002$ when averaging across images. However, when we train different models to investigate the representation effect we see little difference, with Spearman rank correlation coefficients of $0.846\pm0.006$ and $0.850\pm0.006$ showing no statistically significant difference in the quality of the model representation with regard to density prediction. Conclusions: We show that the mapping between representation and mammographic density prediction is significantly affected by label variability. However, the effect of the label variability on the model representation is limited

A method for exploratory repeated-measures analysis applied to a breast-cancer screening study

When a model may be fitted separately to each individual statistical unit, inspection of the point estimates may help the statistician to understand between-individual variability and to identify possible relationships. However, some information will be lost in such an approach because estimation uncertainty is disregarded. We present a comparative method for exploratory repeated-measures analysis to complement the point estimates that was motivated by and is demonstrated by analysis of data from the CADET II breast-cancer screening study. The approach helped to flag up some unusual reader behavior, to assess differences in performance, and to identify potential random-effects models for further analysis.Comment: Published in at http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/11-AOAS481 the Annals of Applied Statistics (http://www.imstat.org/aoas/) by the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (http://www.imstat.org

Computer-assisted mammographic imaging

Computer-assisted mammography imaging comprises computer-based analysis of digitized images resulting in prompts aiding mammographic interpretation and computerized stereotactic localization devices which improve location accuracy. The commercial prompting systems available are designed to draw attention to mammographic abnormalities detected by algorithms based on symptomatic practise in North America. High sensitivity rates are important commercially but result in increased false prompt rates, which are known to distract radiologists. A national shortage of breast radiologists in the UK necessitates evaluation of such systems in a population breast screening programme to determine effectiveness in increasing cancer detection and feasibility of implementation

Accuracy of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Depicting Breast Cancer Subgroups in a UK Retrospective Reading Study (TOMMY Trial)

Purpose To compare the diagnostic performance of two-dimensional (2D) mammography, 2D mammography plus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and synthetic 2D mammography plus DBT in depicting malignant radiographic features. Materials and Methods In this multicenter, multireader, retrospective reading study (the TOMMY trial), after written informed consent was obtained, 8869 women (age range, 29–85 years; mean, 56 years) were recruited from July 2011 to March 2013 in an ethically approved study. From these women, a reading dataset of 7060 cases was randomly allocated for independent blinded review of (a) 2D mammography images, (b) 2D mammography plus DBT images, and (c) synthetic 2D mammography plus DBT images. Reviewers had no access to results of previous examinations. Overall sensitivities and specificities were calculated for younger women and those with dense breasts. Results Overall sensitivity was 87% for 2D mammography, 89% for 2D mammography plus DBT, and 88% for synthetic 2D mammography plus DBT. The addition of DBT was associated with a 34% increase in the odds of depicting cancer (odds ratio [OR] = 1.34, P = .06); however, this level did not achieve significance. For patients aged 50–59 years old, sensitivity was significantly higher (P = .01) for 2D mammography plus DBT than it was for 2D mammography. For those with breast density of 50% or more, sensitivity was 86% for 2D mammography compared with 93% for 2D mammography plus DBT (P = .03). Specificity was 57% for 2D mammography, 70% for 2D mammography plus DBT, and 72% for synthetic 2D mammography plusmDBT. Specificity was significantly higher than 2D mammography (P < .001in both cases) and was observed for all subgroups (P < .001 for all cases). Conclusion The addition of DBT increased the sensitivity of 2D mammography in patients with dense breasts and the specificity of 2D mammography for all subgroups. The use of synthetic 2D DBT demonstrated performance similar to that of standard 2D mammography with DBT. DBT is of potential benefit to screening programs, particularly in younger women with dense breasts. © RSNA, 2015The TOMMY Trial (a comparison of digital breast tomosynthesis with mammography in the UK Breast Screening Programme) was supported by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme.This is the final published version of the article. It was originally published in Radiology (Gilbert et al., Radiology, 2015, doi:10.1148/radiol.2015142566). The final version is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.201514256

Accuracy of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Depicting Breast Cancer Subgroups in a UK Retrospective Reading Study (TOMMY Trial).

PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of two-dimensional (2D) mammography, 2D mammography plus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and synthetic 2D mammography plus DBT in depicting malignant radiographic features. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, multireader, retrospective reading study (the TOMMY trial), after written informed consent was obtained, 8869 women (age range, 29-85 years; mean, 56 years) were recruited from July 2011 to March 2013 in an ethically approved study. From these women, a reading dataset of 7060 cases was randomly allocated for independent blinded review of (a) 2D mammography images, (b) 2D mammography plus DBT images, and (c) synthetic 2D mammography plus DBT images. Reviewers had no access to results of previous examinations. Overall sensitivities and specificities were calculated for younger women and those with dense breasts. RESULTS: Overall sensitivity was 87% for 2D mammography, 89% for 2D mammography plus DBT, and 88% for synthetic 2D mammography plus DBT. The addition of DBT was associated with a 34% increase in the odds of depicting cancer (odds ratio [OR] = 1.34, P = .06); however, this level did not achieve significance. For patients aged 50-59 years old, sensitivity was significantly higher (P = .01) for 2D mammography plus DBT than it was for 2D mammography. For those with breast density of 50% or more, sensitivity was 86% for 2D mammography compared with 93% for 2D mammography plus DBT (P = .03). Specificity was 57% for 2D mammography, 70% for 2D mammography plus DBT, and 72% for synthetic 2D mammography plusmDBT. Specificity was significantly higher than 2D mammography (P < .001in both cases) and was observed for all subgroups (P < .001 for all cases). CONCLUSION: The addition of DBT increased the sensitivity of 2D mammography in patients with dense breasts and the specificity of 2D mammography for all subgroups. The use of synthetic 2D DBT demonstrated performance similar to that of standard 2D mammography with DBT. DBT is of potential benefit to screening programs, particularly in younger women with dense breasts. (©) RSNA, 2015.The TOMMY Trial (a comparison of digital breast tomosynthesis with mammography in the UK Breast Screening Programme) was supported by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme.This is the final published version of the article. It was originally published in Radiology (Gilbert et al., Radiology, 2015, doi:10.1148/radiol.2015142566). The final version is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.201514256

The Relationship between Body Mass Index and Mammographic Density during a Premenopausal Weight Loss Intervention Study

From MDPI via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: accepted 2021-06-18, pub-electronic 2021-06-29Publication status: PublishedFunder: Cancer Research UK; Grant(s): C569/A16891, IS-BRC-1215-20007We evaluated the association between short-term change in body mass index (BMI) and breast density during a 1 year weight-loss intervention (Manchester, UK). We included 65 premenopausal women (35–45 years, ≥7 kg adult weight gain, family history of breast cancer). BMI and breast density (semi-automated area-based, automated volume-based) were measured at baseline, 1 year, and 2 years after study entry (1 year post intervention). Cross-sectional (between-women) and short-term change (within-women) associations between BMI and breast density were measured using repeated-measures correlation coefficients and multivariable linear mixed models. BMI was positively correlated with dense volume between-women (r = 0.41, 95%CI: 0.17, 0.61), but less so within-women (r = 0.08, 95%CI: −0.16, 0.28). There was little association with dense area (between-women r = −0.12, 95%CI: −0.38, 0.16; within-women r = 0.01, 95%CI: −0.24, 0.25). BMI and breast fat were positively correlated (volume: between r = 0.77, 95%CI: 0.69, 0.84, within r = 0.58, 95%CI: 0.36, 0.75; area: between r = 0.74, 95%CI: 0.63, 0.82, within r = 0.45, 95%CI: 0.23, 0.63). Multivariable models reported similar associations. Exploratory analysis suggested associations between BMI gain from 20 years and density measures (standard deviation change per +5 kg/m2 BMI: dense area: +0.61 (95%CI: 0.12, 1.09); fat volume: −0.31 (95%CI: −0.62, 0.00)). Short-term BMI change is likely to be positively associated with breast fat, but we found little association with dense tissue, although power was limited by small sample size