Using automated texture features to determine the probability for masking of a tumor on mammography, but not ultrasound

BackgroundTumors in radiologically dense breast were overlooked on mammograms more often than tumors in low-density breasts. A fast reproducible and automated method of assessing percentage mammographic density (PMD) would be desirable to support decisions whether ultrasonography should be provided for women in addition to mammography in diagnostic mammography units. PMD assessment has still not been included in clinical routine work, as there are issues of interobserver variability and the procedure is quite time consuming. This study investigated whether fully automatically generated texture features of mammograms can replace time-consuming semi-automatic PMD assessment to predict a patient’s risk of having an invasive breast tumor that is visible on ultrasound but masked on mammography (mammography failure).MethodsThis observational study included 1334 women with invasive breast cancer treated at a hospital-based diagnostic mammography unit. Ultrasound was available for the entire cohort as part of routine diagnosis. Computer-based threshold PMD assessments (“observed PMD”) were carried out and 363 texture features were obtained from each mammogram. Several variable selection and regression techniques (univariate selection, lasso, boosting, random forest) were applied to predict PMD from the texture features. The predicted PMD values were each used as new predictor for masking in logistic regression models together with clinical predictors. These four logistic regression models with predicted PMD were compared among themselves and with a logistic regression model with observed PMD. The most accurate masking prediction was determined by cross-validation.ResultsAbout 120 of the 363 texture features were selected for predicting PMD. Density predictions with boosting were the best substitute for observed PMD to predict masking. Overall, the corresponding logistic regression model performed better (cross-validated AUC, 0.747) than one without mammographic density (0.734), but less well than the one with the observed PMD (0.753). However, in patients with an assigned mammography failure risk >10%, covering about half of all masked tumors, the boosting-based model performed at least as accurately as the original PMD model.ConclusionAutomatically generated texture features can replace semi-automatically determined PMD in a prediction model for mammography failure, such that more than 50% of masked tumors could be discovered.

[1]  E. Conant,et al.  Beyond breast density: a review on the advancing role of parenchymal texture analysis in breast cancer risk assessment , 2016, Breast Cancer Research.

[2]  Cor J. Veenman,et al.  A protocol for building and evaluating predictors of disease state based on microarray data , 2005, Bioinform..

[3]  Arnoldo Frigessi,et al.  BIOINFORMATICS ORIGINAL PAPER doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btm305 Gene expression Predicting survival from microarray data—a comparative study , 2022 .

[4]  J. Friedman Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine. , 2001 .

[5]  Nico Karssemeijer,et al.  Unsupervised Deep Learning Applied to Breast Density Segmentation and Mammographic Risk Scoring , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[6]  T. M. Kolb,et al.  Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. , 2002, Radiology.

[7]  Jean B. Cormack,et al.  Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. , 2008, JAMA.

[8]  T. Sellers,et al.  Automated Percentage of Breast Density Measurements for Full-field Digital Mammography Applications. , 2014, Academic radiology.

[9]  Bram van Ginneken,et al.  A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis , 2017, Medical Image Anal..

[10]  M. Beckmann,et al.  Predicting Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Subtype Using Multiple Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms for Breast Cancer Risk and Several Variable Selection Methods , 2017, Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde.

[11]  M. Lux,et al.  Mammographic density is the main correlate of tumors detected on ultrasound but not on mammography , 2016, International journal of cancer.

[12]  Karla Kerlikowske,et al.  Comparison of Clinical and Automated Breast Density Measurements: Implications for Risk Prediction and Supplemental Screening. , 2016, Radiology.

[13]  C. Lehman,et al.  Identifying women with dense breasts at high risk for interval cancer: a cohort study. , 2015, Annals of internal medicine.

[14]  C. Vachon,et al.  Mammographic texture and risk of breast cancer by tumor type and estrogen receptor status , 2016, Breast Cancer Research.

[15]  Richard Simon,et al.  Bias in error estimation when using cross-validation for model selection , 2006, BMC Bioinformatics.

[16]  T. Sellers,et al.  The influence of mammogram acquisition on the mammographic density and breast cancer association in the mayo mammography health study cohort , 2012, Breast Cancer Research.

[17]  Michael Bachmann Nielsen,et al.  Mammographic density and structural features can individually and jointly contribute to breast cancer risk assessment in mammography screening: a case–control study , 2016, BMC Cancer.

[18]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Random Forests , 2001, Machine Learning.

[19]  A. Arieno,et al.  Qualitative Versus Quantitative Mammographic Breast Density Assessment: Applications for the US and Abroad , 2017, Diagnostics.

[20]  R. Tibshirani Regression Shrinkage and Selection via the Lasso , 1996 .

[21]  Michael J. Carston,et al.  Texture Features from Mammographic Images and Risk of Breast Cancer , 2009, Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention.

[22]  M A Astrahan,et al.  The detection of changes in mammographic densities. , 1998, Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology.

[23]  Ewout W Steyerberg,et al.  Extensions of net reclassification improvement calculations to measure usefulness of new biomarkers , 2011, Statistics in medicine.

[24]  Michael J. Carston,et al.  An Automated Approach for Estimation of Breast Density , 2008, Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention.

[25]  Rn Marijke Vroomen Durning Breast Density Notification Laws by State — Interactive Map , 2017 .

[26]  M. Bani,et al.  Quality Assured Health Care in Certified Breast Centers and Improvement of the Prognosis of Breast Cancer Patients , 2011, Oncology Research and Treatment.

[27]  T. Sellers,et al.  A novel automated mammographic density measure and breast cancer risk. , 2012, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[28]  T Hothorn,et al.  Weight estimation by three‐dimensional ultrasound imaging in the small fetus , 2008, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[29]  M. Lux,et al.  Characterizing mammographic images by using generic texture features , 2012, Breast Cancer Research.

[30]  Peter Buhlmann,et al.  BOOSTING ALGORITHMS: REGULARIZATION, PREDICTION AND MODEL FITTING , 2007, 0804.2752.