Prediction of Upstaged Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Using Forced Labeling and Domain Adaptation

Objective: The goal of this study is to use adjunctive classes to improve a predictive model whose performance is limited by the common problems of small numbers of primary cases, high feature dimensionality, and poor class separability. Specifically, our clinical task is to use mammographic features to predict whether ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) identified at needle core biopsy will be later upstaged or shown to contain invasive breast cancer. Methods: To improve the prediction of pure DCIS (negative) versus upstaged DCIS (positive) cases, this study considers the adjunctive roles of two related classes: atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), a non-cancer type of breast abnormity, and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), with 113 computer vision based mammographic features extracted from each case. To improve the baseline Model A's classification of pure vs. upstaged DCIS, we designed three different strategies (Models B, C, D) with different ways of embedding features or inputs. Results: Based on ROC analysis, the baseline Model A performed with AUC of 0.614 (95% CI, 0.496-0.733). All three new models performed better than the baseline, with domain adaptation (Model D) performing the best with an AUC of 0.697 (95% CI, 0.595-0.797). Conclusion: We improved the prediction performance of DCIS upstaging by embedding two related pathology classes in different training phases. Significance: The three new strategies of embedding related class data all outperformed the baseline model, thus demonstrating not only feature similarities among these different classes, but also the potential for improving classification by using other related classes.

[1]  W D Dupont,et al.  Risk factors for breast cancer in women with proliferative breast disease. , 1985, The New England journal of medicine.

[2]  R. Kane,et al.  Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a systematic review of incidence, treatment, and outcomes. , 2010, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[3]  I. Ellis,et al.  Predicting invasion in mammographically detected microcalcification. , 2001, Clinical radiology.

[4]  Lars J. Grimm,et al.  Prediction of Occult Invasive Disease in Ductal Carcinoma in Situ Using Deep Learning Features. , 2018, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[5]  Lars J. Grimm,et al.  Can Occult Invasive Disease in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Be Predicted Using Computer-extracted Mammographic Features? , 2017, Academic radiology.

[6]  Koby Crammer,et al.  Learning from Multiple Sources , 2006, NIPS.

[7]  Andrew Zisserman,et al.  Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition , 2014, ICLR.

[8]  G. Colditz,et al.  Outcome of patients with ductal carcinoma in situ untreated after diagnostic biopsy , 2005, Cancer.

[9]  Joseph Y. Lo,et al.  Improving classification with forced labeling of other related classes: application to prediction of upstaged ductal carcinoma in situ using mammographic features , 2018, Medical Imaging.

[10]  Qiang Yang,et al.  A Survey on Transfer Learning , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.

[11]  M. Jorge Cardoso,et al.  Accurate multimodal probabilistic prediction of conversion to Alzheimer's disease in patients with mild cognitive impairment☆ , 2013, NeuroImage: Clinical.

[12]  Zhe Zhu,et al.  Deep learning analysis of breast MRIs for prediction of occult invasive disease in ductal carcinoma in situ , 2017, Comput. Biol. Medicine.

[13]  J. Trojanowski,et al.  Integration and relative value of biomarkers for prediction of MCI to AD progression: Spatial patterns of brain atrophy, cognitive scores, APOE genotype and CSF biomarkers , 2013, NeuroImage: Clinical.

[14]  Fan Wang,et al.  Automatic detection of microcalcifications using mathematical morphology and a support vector machine. , 2014, Bio-medical materials and engineering.

[15]  Bircan Erbas,et al.  The natural history of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a review , 2006, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[16]  E. DeLong,et al.  Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. , 1988, Biometrics.

[17]  Nico Karssemeijer,et al.  Learning from unbalanced data: A cascade-based approach for detecting clustered microcalcifications , 2014, Medical Image Anal..

[18]  D. Collins,et al.  Scoring by nonlocal image patch estimator for early detection of Alzheimer's disease☆ , 2012, NeuroImage: Clinical.

[19]  Eusebi,et al.  Long-term follow-up of in situ carcinoma of the breast. , 1994, Seminars in diagnostic pathology.

[20]  Daoqiang Zhang,et al.  Domain Transfer Learning for MCI Conversion Prediction , 2012, MICCAI.

[21]  M. Sherman,et al.  Recent trends in breast cancer among younger women in the United States. , 2008, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[22]  Lars J. Grimm,et al.  Imaging Features of Patients Undergoing Active Surveillance for Ductal Carcinoma in Situ. , 2017, Academic radiology.

[23]  Lars J. Grimm,et al.  Cancer Outcomes in DCIS Patients Without Locoregional Treatment. , 2019, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[24]  E. Feuer,et al.  SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2003 , 2006 .

[25]  V Shane Pankratz,et al.  Benign breast disease and the risk of breast cancer. , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[26]  W. Dupont,et al.  The natural history of low‐grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in women treated by biopsy only revealed over 30 years of long‐term follow‐up , 2005, Cancer.

[27]  N. Meinshausen,et al.  Stability selection , 2008, 0809.2932.

[28]  D. Allred,et al.  Ductal carcinoma in situ: terminology, classification, and natural history. , 2010, Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.