The Role of Deep Learning in Breast Screening

Breast Screening Programme, England - 2016-17 [PAS] https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/breast-screening-programme/breast-screening-programme-england%2D%2D-2016-17 - accessed October 2018.

• Royal College of Radiologists. The breast imaging and diagnostic workforce in the United Kingdom. Reference: BFCR(16)2. 2016. The workforce crisis in the UK threatens to destabilise the breast screening programme.

Nakajima Y, Yamada K, Imamura K, Kobayashi K. Radiologist supply and workload: international comparison--Working Group of Japanese College of Radiology. Radiat Med. 2008;26:455–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-008-0259-2 .

Beam CA, et al. Effect of Human Variability on Independent Double Reading in Screening Mammography. Academic Radiology. 1996;3(11):891–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1076-6332(96)80296-0 .

Domingo L, et al. Cross-national comparison of screening mammography accuracy measures in U.S., Norway, and Spain. European Radiology. 2016;26(8):2520–8.

Philpotts LE. Can computer-aided detection be detrimental to mammographic interpretation? Radiology. 2009;253(1):17–22.

Gilbert FJ, et al. Single reading with computer-aided detection for screening mammography. New England Journal of Medicine. 2008;359(16):1675–84.

Taylor P, Potts HWW. Computer aids and human second reading as interventions in screening mammography: two systematic reviews to compare effects on cancer detection and recall rate. European Journal of Cancer. 2008;44(6):798–807.

Karssemeijer N, et al. Breast cancer screening results 5 years after introduction of digital mammography in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2009;253(2):353–8.

Bargalló X, et al. Single reading with computer-aided detection performed by selected radiologists in a breast cancer screening program. European Journal of Radiology. 2014;83(11):2019–23.

•• Lehman CD, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital screening mammography with and without computer-aided detection. JAMA Internal Medicine. 2015;175(11):1828. This is perhaps the most seminal study of traditional CAD in practice and concluded that CAD did not provide the promised improvement in diagnostic accuracy.

• Kohli A, Jha S. Why CAD failed in mammography. Journal of the American College of Radiology. 2018;15(3 Pt B):535–7. An excellent overview of the failures of traditional CAD systems and radiologists’ perceptions of them.

Elmore JG, et al. Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. New England Journal of Medicine. 1998;338(16):1089–96. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199804163381601 .

Gilbert FJ, et al. CADET II: a prospective trial of computer-aided detection (CAD) in the UK Breast Screening Programme. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2008;26(15_suppl):508.

•• Krizhevsky A, Sutskever I, Hinton GE. ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. Communications of the ACM. 2017;60(6): 84–90. https://doi.org/10.1145/3065386 . The breakthrough in deep learning image analysis that led to it’s recent resurgence is described in this paper.

Dhungel N, Carneiro G, Bradley AP. Automated mass detection from mammograms using deep learning and random Forest.International Conference on Digital Image Computing: Techniques and Applications, pages 1–8, 2015.

Ertosun MG, Rubin DL. Probabilistic visual search for masses within mammography images using deep learning.IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine, pages 1310–1315, 2015.

Sage Bionetworks. The digital mammography DREAM challenge. 2016.

• DREAM Challenge results. https://www.synapse.org/#!Synapse:syn4224222/wiki/401763 - accessed November 2018. This was the first public challenge to develop machine learning algorithms for breast cancer detection.

Ribli D, Horváth A, Unger Z, Pollner P, Csabai I. Detecting and classifying lesions in mammograms with Deep Learning. Scientific Reports. 2018;8(1):4165.

Clark K, et al. The cancer imaging archive (TCIA): maintaining and operating a public information repository. Journal of Digital Imaging. 2013;26(6):1045–57.

Moreira IC, et al. INbreast: toward a full-field digital mammographic database. Academic Radiology. 2012;19(2):236–48.

Teare P, et al. Malignancy detection on mammography using dual deep convolutional neural networks and genetically discovered false color input enhancement. Journal of Digital Imaging. 2017;30(4):499–505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-017-9993-2 .

Geras K-J, Wolfson S, Shen Y, et al. High-resolution breast cancer screening with multi-view deep. Convolutional Neural Networks. 2017;arXiv:1703.07047.

Kim E-K, et al. “Applying data-driven imaging biomarker in mammography for breast cancer screening: preliminary study.” Scientific Reports, 2018;8(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-21215-1 .

Rodriguez-Ruiz A, et al. “Can radiologists improve their breast cancer detection in mammography when using a deep learning based computer system as decision support?” 14th International Workshop on Breast Imaging (IWBI 2018). 2018. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2317937 .

•• Lehman CD, et al. National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Screening Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Radiology. 283(1):49–58. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016161174 . A landmark study in the assessment of US breast screening performance.

Miglioretti DL, et al. Criteria for identifying radiologists with acceptable screening mammography interpretive performance on basis of multiple performance measures. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2015;204(4):W486–91.

Carney PA, Sickles EA, Monsees BS, Bassett LW, Brenner RJ, Feig SA, et al. Identifying minimally acceptable interpretive performance criteria for screening mammography. Radiology. 2010;255(2):354–61. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10091636 .

Lehman CD, Yala A, Schuster T, Dontchos B, Bahl M, Swanson K, et al. Mammographic breast density assessment using deep learning: clinical implementation. Radiology. 2018;290:180694–58. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018180694 .

• Wang, Xiaoqin, et al. “Transfer deep learning mammography diagnostic model from public datasets to clinical practice: a comparison of model performance and mammography datasets.” 14th International Workshop on Breast Imaging (IWBI 2018). 2018, https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2317411 . Deep learning techniques are not as generalisable as researchers initially thought, and this study proves that algorithmic modelling incorporates features from datasets that include biases that developers may not be aware of.

Korkinof D et al. High-resolution mammogram synthesis using progressive generative adversarial networks. eprint 2018;arXiv:1807.03401.

Culpan AM. Radiographer involvement in mammography image interpretation: a survey of United Kingdom practice. Radiography. 22(4):2016, 306–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2016.03.004 .

Woodard DB, Gelfand AE, Barlow WE, Elmore JG. Performance assessment for radiologists interpreting screening mammography. Stat Med. 2007;26(7):1532–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.2633 .

Gennaro G, Bernardi D, Houssami N. Radiation dose with digital breast tomosynthesis compared to digital mammography: per-view analysis. European Radiology. 2018;28(2):573–81.

Vedantham S, Karellas A, Vijayaraghavan GR, Kopans DB. Digital breast tomosynthesis: state of the art. Radiology. 2015;277(3):663–84.

James JJ, et al. Evaluation of a computer-aided detection (CAD)-enhanced 2D synthetic mammogram: comparison with standard synthetic 2D mammograms and conventional 2D digital mammography. Clinical Radiology. 2018;73(10):886–92.