A dual-mode deep transfer learning (D2TL) system for breast cancer detection using contrast enhanced digital mammograms

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 357-370 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kun Wang ◽  
Bhavika K. Patel ◽  
Lujia Wang ◽  
Teresa Wu ◽  
Bin Zheng ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
pp. 20201046
Author(s):  
Rashmi Sudhir ◽  
Kamala Sannapareddy ◽  
Alekya Potlapalli ◽  
Pooja Boggaram Krishnamurthy ◽  
Suryakala Buddha ◽  
...  

Objective: To assess the diagnostic efficacy of contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) in breast cancer detection in comparison to synthetic two-dimensional mammography (s2D MG), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) alone and DBT supplemented with ultrasound examination in females with dense breast with histopathology as the gold-standard. Methods: It was a prospective study, where consecutive females presenting to symptomatic breast clinic between April 2019 and June 2020 were evaluated with DBT. Females who were found to have heterogeneously dense (ACR type C) or extremely dense (ACR type D) breast composition detected on s2D MG were further evaluated with high-resolution breast ultrasound and thereafter with CEDM, but before the core biopsy or surgical excision, were included in the study. s2D MG was derived from post-processing reconstruction of DBT data set. Females with pregnancy, renal insufficiency or prior allergic reaction to iodinated contrast agent were excluded from the study. Image interpretation was done by two experienced breast radiologists and both were blinded to histological diagnosis. Results: This study included 166 breast lesions in130 patients with mean age of 45 ± 12 years (age range 24–72 years). There were 87 (52.4%) malignant and 79 (47.6%) benign lesions. The sensitivity of CEDM was 96.5%, significantly higher than synthetic 2D MG (75.6%, p < 0.0001), DBT alone (82.8%, p < 0.0001) and DBT + ultrasound (88.5%, p = 0.0057); specificity of CEDM was 81%, significantly higher than s2D MG (63.3%, p = 0.0002) and comparable to DBT alone (84.4%, p = 0.3586) and DBT + ultrasound (79.7%, p = 0.4135). In receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, the area under the curve was of 0.896 for CEDM, 0.841 for DBT + ultrasound, 0.769 for DBT alone and 0.729 for s2D MG. Conclusion: CEDM is an accurate diagnostic technique for cancer detection in dense breast. CEDM allowed a significantly higher number of breast cancer detection than the s2D MG, DBT alone and DBT supplemented with ultrasonography in females with dense breast. Advances in knowledge: CEDM is a promising novel technology with higher sensitivity and negative predictive value for breast cancer detection in females with dense breast in comparison to DBT alone or DBT supplemented with ultrasound.


2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (17) ◽  
pp. E23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Esdras Chaves ◽  
Caroline B. Gonçalves ◽  
Marcelo K. Albertini ◽  
Soojeong Lee ◽  
Gwanggil Jeon ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Rabah Al abdi ◽  
Christoph Schmitz ◽  
Rehman Ansari ◽  
Randall Andronica ◽  
Yaling Pei ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (26_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7-7
Author(s):  
Luna Li ◽  
Kristin Brill ◽  
Pauline Germaine ◽  
Elizabeth Tinney ◽  
Karen Hendershott ◽  
...  

7 Background: CESM is a new study using contrast and dual energy digital mammographic technology to detect contrast enhanced cancer that may be invisible on conventional mammogram. Limited studies have shown that adding CESM to diagnostic workup adjunct with mammogram and breast ultrasound does increase sensitivity for breast cancer detection. More studies are needed to compare the sensitivity of CESM to BMRI to further define the role of CESM in breast cancer diagnosis. Methods: This study involved 50 malignant breasts in 48 women retrospectively chosen from of 960 patients in our institution during the period of October 2012 to March 2014. Both CESM and BMRI were done for each patient within 30 days. The cancer diagnoses were confirmed by tissue diagnoses. The size of lesions was classified into three categories based on standard of breast cancer stages: 1 (0.2cm - < = 2 cm), 2 (2 cm < lesion < = 5 cm), 3 (> 5 cm). The enhancement intensity of both lesions and background has been quantified based on a scale of 0-3. Statistical significance was analyzed using T test for mean size of index cancer and mean score of enhancement intensity of background and lesions on CESM and BMRI. Sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated for both CESM and BMRI. Morphology consistence was calculated on both studies. Results: Both CESM and BMRI have sensitivity of 100% for breast cancer detection. CESM has a PPV of 98% versus 93% for BMRI. No statistical significance was identified on mean size of index cancer. The enhancement intensity of background and lesions is significantly higher on CESM than on BMRI (p < 0.01). The smallest cancer can be detected by both CESM and BMRI is less than 0.5 cm. Morphology consistence was 46/50 (92%). Conclusions: Our study indicates that CESM and BMRI have comparable high sensitivity on breast cancer detection. CESM has a higher PPV than BMRI that may indicate a better specificity (no significant difference due to the small sample size). Significantly less background enhancement intensity on CESM than on BMRI reflect an increased specificity. More studies need to be conducted for further evaluation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document