Deep Learning vs Traditional Breast Cancer Risk Models to Support Risk-Based Mammography Screening

被引:26
|
作者
Lehman, Constance D. [1 ,2 ]
Mercaldo, Sarah [1 ,2 ]
Lamb, Leslie R. [1 ,2 ]
King, Tari A. [3 ,4 ]
Ellisen, Leif W. [1 ,5 ]
Specht, Michelle [1 ,3 ]
Tamimi, Rulla M. [6 ]
机构
[1] Massachusetts Gen Hosp, Boston, MA 02114 USA
[2] Harvard Med Sch, Radiol, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[3] Harvard Med Sch, Surg, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[4] Dana Farber Brigham & Womens Canc Ctr, Boston, MA USA
[5] Harvard Med Sch, Med, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[6] Weill Cornell Med, Epidemiol & Populat Hlth Sci, New York, NY USA
关键词
WOMEN;
D O I
10.1093/jnci/djac142
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Background Deep learning breast cancer risk models demonstrate improved accuracy compared with traditional risk models but have not been prospectively tested. We compared the accuracy of a deep learning risk score derived from the patient's prior mammogram to traditional risk scores to prospectively identify patients with cancer in a cohort due for screening. Methods We collected data on 119 139 bilateral screening mammograms in 57 617 consecutive patients screened at 5 facilities between September 18, 2017, and February 1, 2021. Patient demographics were retrieved from electronic medical records, cancer outcomes determined through regional tumor registry linkage, and comparisons made across risk models using Wilcoxon and Pearson chi(2) 2-sided tests. Deep learning, Tyrer-Cuzick, and National Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (NCI BCRAT) risk models were compared with respect to performance metrics and area under the receiver operating characteristic curves. Results Cancers detected per thousand patients screened were higher in patients at increased risk by the deep learning model (8.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.9 to 9.4) compared with Tyrer-Cuzick (4.4, 95% CI = 3.9 to 4.9) and NCI BCRAT (3.8, 95% CI = 3.3 to 4.3) models (P < .001). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves of the deep learning model (0.68, 95% CI = 0.66 to 0.70) was higher compared with Tyrer-Cuzick (0.57, 95% CI = 0.54 to 0.60) and NCI BCRAT (0.57, 95% CI = 0.54 to 0.60) models. Simulated screening of the top 50th percentile risk by the deep learning model captured statistically significantly more patients with cancer compared with Tyrer-Cuzick and NCI BCRAT models (P < .001). Conclusions A deep learning model to assess breast cancer risk can support feasible and effective risk-based screening and is superior to traditional models to identify patients destined to develop cancer in large screening cohorts.
引用
收藏
页码:1355 / 1363
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Studies Support Risk-Based Mammography Screening
    Peres, Judy
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2012, 104 (19) : 1428 - 1430
  • [2] Breast Cancer Risk Estimation and Risk-based Screening
    Kerlikowske, Karla
    [J]. MENOPAUSE-THE JOURNAL OF THE NORTH AMERICAN MENOPAUSE SOCIETY, 2023, 30 (12): : 1254 - 1254
  • [3] Mammography-based Deep Learning for Breast Cancer Risk Assessment for Supplemental MRI Screening
    Bae, Min Sun
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2023, 308 (03)
  • [4] Toward Risk-Based Breast Cancer Screening
    Kerlikowske, Karla
    Bibbins-Domingo, Kirsten
    [J]. ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2021, 174 (05) : 710 - +
  • [5] Optimizing risk-based breast cancer screening policies with reinforcement learning
    Yala, Adam
    Mikhael, Peter G.
    Lehman, Constance
    Lin, Gigin G.
    Strand, Fredrik
    Wan, Yung-Liang
    Hughes, Kevin
    Satuluru, Siddharth
    Kim, Thomas
    Banerjee, Imon
    Gichoya, Judy
    Trivedi, Hari
    Barzilay, Regina
    [J]. NATURE MEDICINE, 2022, 28 (01) : 136 - +
  • [6] Optimizing risk-based breast cancer screening policies with reinforcement learning
    Adam Yala
    Peter G. Mikhael
    Constance Lehman
    Gigin Lin
    Fredrik Strand
    Yung-Liang Wan
    Kevin Hughes
    Siddharth Satuluru
    Thomas Kim
    Imon Banerjee
    Judy Gichoya
    Hari Trivedi
    Regina Barzilay
    [J]. Nature Medicine, 2022, 28 : 136 - 143
  • [7] Risk of risk-based mammography screening, ages 40 to 49
    Bassett, LW
    Cardenosa, G
    D'Orsi, CJ
    Dempsey, PJ
    Dershaw, DD
    Destouet, JM
    Evans, WP
    Feig, SA
    Hendrick, RE
    Jackson, VP
    Kopans, DB
    Linver, MN
    Mendelson, EB
    Monsees, B
    Racenstein, MJ
    Sickles, EA
    Stelling, C
    Warren, L
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 1999, 17 (02) : 735 - 737
  • [8] Risk-based Breast Cancer Screening Implications of Breast Density
    Lee, Christoph I.
    Chen, Linda E.
    Elmore, Joann G.
    [J]. MEDICAL CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2017, 101 (04) : 725 - +
  • [9] Risk-based breast cancer screening strategies in women
    Harkness, Elaine F.
    Astley, Susan M.
    Evans, D. Gareth
    [J]. BEST PRACTICE & RESEARCH CLINICAL OBSTETRICS & GYNAECOLOGY, 2020, 65 : 3 - 17
  • [10] Risk-Based Approaches to Breast Cancer Screening in China
    Pace, Lydia E.
    [J]. JAMA NETWORK OPEN, 2022, 5 (11)