Breast cancer risk prediction combining a convolutional neural network-based mammographic evaluation with clinical factors

被引:10
作者
Michel, Alissa [1 ,5 ]
Ro, Vicky [1 ]
McGuinness, Julia E. [1 ,2 ]
Mutasa, Simukayi [3 ]
Terry, Mary Beth [2 ,4 ]
Tehranifar, Parisa [2 ,4 ]
May, Benjamin [2 ]
Ha, Richard [2 ,3 ]
Crew, Katherine D. [1 ,2 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Columbia Univ, Vagelos Coll Phys & Surg, Dept Med, New York, NY 10027 USA
[2] Columbia Univ, Herbert Irving Comprehens Canc Ctr, Irving Med Ctr, New York, NY USA
[3] Columbia Univ, Vagelos Coll Phys & Surg, Dept Radiol, New York, NY USA
[4] Columbia Univ, Mailman Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Epidemiol, New York, NY USA
[5] Hematol Oncol, 177 Ft Washington Ave, New York, NY 10032 USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
Breast cancer; Artificial intelligence; Deep learning; Racial disparities; Risk prediction; Convolutional neural network; DENSITY; VALIDATION;
D O I
10.1007/s10549-023-06966-4
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
PurposeDeep learning techniques, including convolutional neural networks (CNN), have the potential to improve breast cancer risk prediction compared to traditional risk models. We assessed whether combining a CNN-based mammographic evaluation with clinical factors in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) model improved risk prediction.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study among 23,467 women, age 35-74, undergoing screening mammography (2014-2018). We extracted electronic health record (EHR) data on risk factors. We identified 121 women who subsequently developed invasive breast cancer at least 1 year after the baseline mammogram. Mammograms were analyzed with a pixel-wise mammographic evaluation using CNN architecture. We used logistic regression models with breast cancer incidence as the outcome and predictors including clinical factors only (BCSC model) or combined with CNN risk score (hybrid model). We compared model prediction performance via area under the receiver operating characteristics curves (AUCs).ResultsMean age was 55.9 years (SD, 9.5) with 9.3% non-Hispanic Black and 36% Hispanic. Our hybrid model did not significantly improve risk prediction compared to the BCSC model (AUC of 0.654 vs 0.624, respectively, p = 0.063). In subgroup analyses, the hybrid model outperformed the BCSC model among non-Hispanic Blacks (AUC 0.845 vs. 0.589; p = 0.026) and Hispanics (AUC 0.650 vs 0.595; p = 0.049).ConclusionWe aimed to develop an efficient breast cancer risk assessment method using CNN risk score and clinical factors from the EHR. With future validation in a larger cohort, our CNN model combined with clinical factors may help predict breast cancer risk in a cohort of racially/ethnically diverse women undergoing screening.
引用
收藏
页码:237 / 245
页数:9
相关论文
共 30 条
  • [1] Projecting Individualized Absolute Invasive Breast Cancer Risk in US Hispanic Women
    Banegas, Matthew P.
    John, Esther M.
    Slattery, Martha L.
    Gomez, Scarlett Lin
    Yu, Mandi
    LaCroix, Andrea Z.
    Pee, David
    Chlebowski, Rowan T.
    Hines, Lisa M.
    Thompson, Cynthia A.
    Gail, Mitchell H.
    [J]. JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2017, 109 (02):
  • [2] Evaluating breast cancer risk projections for Hispanic women
    Banegas, Matthew P.
    Gail, Mitchell H.
    LaCroix, Andrea
    Thompson, Beti
    Martinez, Maria Elena
    Wactawski-Wende, Jean
    John, Esther M.
    Hubbell, F. Allan
    Yasmeen, Shagufta
    Katki, Hormuzd A.
    [J]. BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 2012, 132 (01) : 347 - 353
  • [3] Mammographic density adds accuracy to both the Tyrer-Cuzick and Gail breast cancer risk models in a prospective UK screening cohort
    Brentnall, Adam R.
    Harkness, Elaine F.
    Astley, Susan M.
    Donnelly, Louise S.
    Stavrinos, Paula
    Sampson, Sarah
    Fox, Lynne
    Sergeant, Jamie C.
    Harvie, Michelle N.
    Wilson, Mary
    Beetles, Ursula
    Gadde, Soujanya
    Lim, Yit
    Jain, Anil
    Bundred, Sara
    Barr, Nicola
    Reece, Valerie
    Howell, Anthony
    Cuzick, Jack
    Evans, D. Gareth R.
    [J]. BREAST CANCER RESEARCH, 2015, 17
  • [4] Improving Accuracy and Efficiency with Concurrent Use of Artificial Intelligence for Digital Breast Tomosynthesis
    Conant, Emily F.
    Toledano, Alicia Y.
    Periaswamy, Senthil
    Fotin, Sergei, V
    Go, Jonathan
    Boatsman, Justin E.
    Hoffmeister, Jeffrey W.
    [J]. RADIOLOGY-ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, 2019, 1 (04)
  • [5] Copeland G., 2015, Cancer in North America: 2008-2012. Volume 1: Combined Cancer Incidence for the United States
  • [6] Comparison of a Deep Learning Risk Score and Standard Mammographic Density Score for Breast Cancer Risk Prediction
    Dembrower, Karin
    Liu, Yue
    Azizpour, Hossein
    Eklund, Martin
    Smith, Kevin
    Lindholm, Peter
    Strand, Fredrik
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2020, 294 (02) : 265 - 272
  • [7] Breast cancer statistics, 2019
    DeSantis, Carol E.
    Ma, Jiemin
    Gaudet, Mia M.
    Newman, Lisa A.
    Miller, Kimberly D.
    Sauer, Ann Goding
    Jemal, Ahmedin
    Siegel, Rebecca L.
    [J]. CA-A CANCER JOURNAL FOR CLINICIANS, 2019, 69 (06) : 438 - 451
  • [8] PROJECTING INDIVIDUALIZED PROBABILITIES OF DEVELOPING BREAST-CANCER FOR WHITE FEMALES WHO ARE BEING EXAMINED ANNUALLY
    GAIL, MH
    BRINTON, LA
    BYAR, DP
    CORLE, DK
    GREEN, SB
    SCHAIRER, C
    MULVIHILL, JJ
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 1989, 81 (24) : 1879 - 1886
  • [9] Projecting individualized absolute invasive breast cancer risk in African American women
    Gail, Mitchell H.
    Costantino, Joseph P.
    Pee, David
    Bondy, Melissa
    Newman, Lisa
    Selvan, Mano
    Anderson, Garnet L.
    Malone, Kathleen E.
    Marchbanks, Polly A.
    McCaskill-Stevens, Worta
    Norman, Sandra A.
    Simon, Michael S.
    Spirtas, Robert
    Ursin, Giske
    Bernstein, Leslie
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2007, 99 (23) : 1782 - 1792
  • [10] Barriers to minority participation in breast carcinoma prevention trials
    Grann, VR
    Jacobson, JS
    Troxel, AB
    Hershman, D
    Karp, J
    Myers, C
    Neugut, AI
    [J]. CANCER, 2005, 104 (02) : 374 - 379