High-Risk Breast Lesions: A Machine Learning Model to Predict Pathologic Upgrade and Reduce Unnecessary Surgical Excision.

Purpose To develop a machine learning model that allows high-risk breast lesions (HRLs) diagnosed with image-guided needle biopsy that require surgical excision to be distinguished from HRLs that are at low risk for upgrade to cancer at surgery and thus could be surveilled. Materials and Methods Consecutive patients with biopsy-proven HRLs who underwent surgery or at least 2 years of imaging follow-up from June 2006 to April 2015 were identified. A random forest machine learning model was developed to identify HRLs at low risk for upgrade to cancer. Traditional features such as age and HRL histologic results were used in the model, as were text features from the biopsy pathologic report. Results One thousand six HRLs were identified, with a cancer upgrade rate of 11.4% (115 of 1006). A machine learning random forest model was developed with 671 HRLs and tested with an independent set of 335 HRLs. Among the most important traditional features were age and HRL histologic results (eg, atypical ductal hyperplasia). An important text feature from the pathologic reports was "severely atypical." Instead of surgical excision of all HRLs, if those categorized with the model to be at low risk for upgrade were surveilled and the remainder were excised, then 97.4% (37 of 38) of malignancies would have been diagnosed at surgery, and 30.6% (91 of 297) of surgeries of benign lesions could have been avoided. Conclusion This study provides proof of concept that a machine learning model can be applied to predict the risk of upgrade of HRLs to cancer. Use of this model could decrease unnecessary surgery by nearly one-third and could help guide clinical decision making with regard to surveillance versus surgical excision of HRLs. © RSNA, 2017.

[1]  Ross W. Filice,et al.  Implementing Machine Learning in Radiology Practice and Research. , 2017, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[2]  Hongmin Cai,et al.  Discrimination of Breast Cancer with Microcalcifications on Mammography by Deep Learning , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[3]  Amy Cantor,et al.  Harms of Breast Cancer Screening: Systematic Review to Update the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation , 2016, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[4]  Song Liu,et al.  Lobular neoplasia detected in MRI-guided core biopsy carries a high risk for upgrade: a study of 63 cases from four different institutions , 2016, Modern Pathology.

[5]  Gillian D Sanders,et al.  Benefits and Harms of Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review. , 2015, JAMA.

[6]  Karla Kerlikowske,et al.  Trends in breast biopsy pathology diagnoses among women undergoing mammography in the United States: A report from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium , 2015, Cancer.

[7]  A. Nassar,et al.  Radial scar/complex sclerosing lesions: a clinicopathologic correlation study from a single institution. , 2015, Annals of diagnostic pathology.

[8]  R. Simmons,et al.  Advocating Nonsurgical Management of Patients With Small, Incidental Radial Scars at the Time of Needle Core Biopsy: A Study of 77 Cases. , 2015, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[9]  Colleen H. Neal,et al.  Is the upgrade rate of atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed by core needle biopsy of calcifications different for digital and film-screen mammography? , 2014, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[10]  D. Miglioretti,et al.  Upgrade of high-risk breast lesions detected on mammography in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. , 2014, American journal of surgery.

[11]  T. D’alfonso,et al.  Pathologic upgrade rates on subsequent excision when lobular carcinoma in situ is the primary diagnosis in the needle core biopsy with special attention to the radiographic target. , 2013, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[12]  A. Soran,et al.  Rationale of Excisional Biopsy After the Diagnosis of Benign Radial Scar on Core Biopsy: A Single Institutional Outcome Analysis , 2013, American journal of clinical oncology.

[13]  G. McGinty,et al.  Classic lobular neoplasia on core biopsy: a clinical and radio-pathologic correlation study with follow-up excision biopsy , 2013, Modern Pathology.

[14]  Carol Reynolds,et al.  Management of Benign Intraductal Solitary Papilloma Diagnosed on Core Needle Biopsy , 2013, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[15]  H. Kuerer,et al.  Multidisciplinary considerations in the management of high-risk breast lesions. , 2012, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[16]  A. Arieno,et al.  Management of patients diagnosed with lobular carcinoma in situ at needle core biopsy at a community-based outpatient facility. , 2012, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[17]  D. Georgian-Smith,et al.  Variations in physician recommendations for surgery after diagnosis of a high-risk lesion on breast core needle biopsy. , 2012, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[18]  F. Bellafiore,et al.  Flat epithelial atypia with and without atypical ductal hyperplasia: to re-excise or not. Results of a 5-year prospective study , 2012, Virchows Archiv.

[19]  E. Deperi,et al.  Long-Term Follow-up of Lobular Neoplasia (Atypical Lobular Hyperplasia/Lobular Carcinoma In Situ) Diagnosed on Core Needle Biopsy , 2012, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[20]  S. Gabram,et al.  Management of papillary breast lesions diagnosed on core-needle biopsy: clinical pathologic and radiologic analysis of 276 cases with surgical follow-up. , 2012, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[21]  R. Rouzier,et al.  Scoring to predict the possibility of upgrades to malignancy in atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed by an 11-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsy device: an external validation study. , 2012, European journal of cancer.

[22]  V. Bécette,et al.  Rates of upgrade to malignancy for 271 cases of flat epithelial atypia (FEA) diagnosed by breast core biopsy , 2012, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[23]  S. Meterissian,et al.  Flat epithelial atypia of the breast: pathological-radiological correlation. , 2011, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[24]  N. Sneige,et al.  Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia in Directional Vacuum-Assisted Biopsy of Breast Microcalcifications: Considerations for Surgical Excision , 2011, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[25]  D. Georgian-Smith,et al.  Controversies on the management of high-risk lesions at core biopsy from a radiology/pathology perspective. , 2010, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[26]  D. Georgian-Smith,et al.  Excision of high-risk breast lesions on needle biopsy: is there a standard of core? , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[27]  Stephen R. Marsland,et al.  Machine Learning - An Algorithmic Perspective , 2009, Chapman and Hall / CRC machine learning and pattern recognition series.

[28]  C. Lehman,et al.  Frequency and upgrade rates of atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: 9-versus 11-gauge. , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[29]  I. Treilleux,et al.  Is surgical biopsy mandatory in case of atypical ductal hyperplasia on 11-gauge core needle biopsy? A retrospective study of 300 patients. , 2008, American journal of surgery.

[30]  G. Gong,et al.  Papillary lesions of the breast diagnosed at percutaneous sonographically guided biopsy: comparison of sonographic features and biopsy methods. , 2008, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[31]  Rachel F Brem,et al.  Lobular neoplasia at percutaneous breast biopsy: variables associated with carcinoma at surgical excision. , 2008, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[32]  S. Wall,et al.  Breast cancer screening with mammography: overview of Swedish randomised trials , 1993, The Lancet.

[33]  Thomas M. Cover,et al.  Elements of Information Theory , 2005 .

[34]  L. Tabár,et al.  REDUCTION IN MORTALITY FROM BREAST CANCER AFTER MASS SCREENING WITH MAMMOGRAPHY Randomised Trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare , 1985, The Lancet.