Breast density prediction from low and standard dose mammograms using deep learning: effect of image resolution and model training approach on prediction quality.

Purpose. To improve breast cancer risk prediction for young women, we have developed deep learning methods to estimate mammographic density from low dose mammograms taken at approximately 1/10th of the usual dose. We investigate the quality and reliability of the density scores produced on low dose mammograms focussing on how image resolution and levels of training affect the low dose predictions.Methods. Deep learning models are developed and tested, with two feature extraction methods and an end-to-end trained method, on five different resolutions of 15,290 standard dose and simulated low dose mammograms with known labels. The models are further tested on a dataset with 296 matching standard and real low dose images allowing performance on the low dose images to be ascertained.Results. Prediction quality on standard and simulated low dose images compared to labels is similar for all equivalent model training and image resolution versions. Increasing resolution results in improved performance of both feature extraction methods for standard and simulated low dose images, while the trained models show high performance across the resolutions. For the trained models the Spearman rank correlation coefficient between predictions of standard and low dose images at low resolution is 0.951 (0.937 to 0.960) and at the highest resolution 0.956 (0.942 to 0.965). If pairs of model predictions are averaged, similarity increases.Conclusions. Deep learning mammographic density predictions on low dose mammograms are highly correlated with standard dose equivalents for feature extraction and end-to-end approaches across multiple image resolutions. Deep learning models can reliably make high quality mammographic density predictions on low dose mammograms.

Automatic assessment of mammographic density using a deep transfer learning method.

Purpose: Mammographic breast density is one of the strongest risk factors for cancer. Density assessed by radiologists using visual analogue scales has been shown to provide better risk predictions than other methods. Our purpose is to build automated models using deep learning and train on radiologist scores to make accurate and consistent predictions. Approach: We used a dataset of almost 160,000 mammograms, each with two independent density scores made by expert medical practitioners. We used two pretrained deep networks and adapted them to produce feature vectors, which were then used for both linear and nonlinear regression to make density predictions. We also simulated an "optimal method," which allowed us to compare the quality of our results with a simulated upper bound on performance. Results: Our deep learning method produced estimates with a root mean squared error (RMSE) of 8.79 ± 0.21 . The model estimates of cancer risk perform at a similar level to human experts, within uncertainty bounds. We made comparisons between different model variants and demonstrated the high level of consistency of the model predictions. Our modeled "optimal method" produced image predictions with a RMSE of between 7.98 and 8.90 for cranial caudal images. Conclusion: We demonstrated a deep learning framework based upon a transfer learning approach to make density estimates based on radiologists' visual scores. Our approach requires modest computational resources and has the potential to be trained with limited quantities of data.

The effect of variable labels on deep learning models trained to predict breast density.

Purpose. High breast density is associated with reduced efficacy of mammographic screening and increased risk of developing breast cancer. Accurate and reliable automated density estimates can be used for direct risk prediction and passing density related information to further predictive models. Expert reader assessments of density show a strong relationship to cancer risk but also inter-reader variation. The effect of label variability on model performance is important when considering how to utilise automated methods for both research and clinical purposes.Methods. We utilise subsets of images with density labels from the same 13 readers and 12 reader pairs, and train a deep transfer learning model which is used to assess how label variability affects the mapping from representation to prediction. We then create two end-to-end models: one that is trained on averaged labels across the reader pairs and the second that is trained using individual reader scores, with a novel alteration to the objective function. The combination of these two end-to-end models allows us to investigate the effect of label variability on the model representation formed.Results. We show that the trained mappings from representations to labels are altered considerably by the variability of reader scores. Training on labels with distribution variation removed causes the Spearman rank correlation coefficients to rise from 0.751 ± 0.002 to either 0.815 ± 0.026 when averaging across readers or 0.844 ± 0.002 when averaging across images. However, when we train different models to investigate the representation effect we see little difference, with Spearman rank correlation coefficients of 0.846 ± 0.006 and 0.850 ± 0.006 showing no statistically significant difference in the quality of the model representation with regard to density prediction.Conclusions. We show that the mapping between representation and mammographic density prediction is significantly affected by label variability. However, the effect of the label variability on the model representation is limited.

Breast cancer risk stratification in women of screening age: Incremental effects of adding mammographic density, polygenic risk, and a gene panel.

PURPOSE: There is great promise in breast cancer risk stratification to target screening and prevention. It is unclear whether adding gene panels to other risk tools improves breast cancer risk stratification and adds discriminatory benefit on a population basis. METHODS: In total, 10,025 of 57,902 women aged 46 to 73 years in the Predicting Risk of Cancer at Screening study provided DNA samples. A case-control study was used to evaluate breast cancer risk assessment using polygenic risk scores (PRSs), cancer gene panel (n = 33), mammographic density (density residual [DR]), and risk factors collected using a self-completed 2-page questionnaire (Tyrer-Cuzick [TC] model version 8). In total, 525 cases and 1410 controls underwent gene panel testing and PRS calculation (18, 143, and/or 313 single-nucleotide polymorphisms [SNPs]). RESULTS: Actionable pathogenic variants (PGVs) in BRCA1/2 were found in 1.7% of cases and 0.55% of controls, and overall PGVs were found in 6.1% of cases and 1.3% of controls. A combined assessment of TC8-DR-SNP313 and gene panel provided the best risk stratification with 26.1% of controls and 9.7% of cases identified at <1.4% 10-year risk and 9.01% of controls and 23.3% of cases at ≥8% 10-year risk. Because actionable PGVs were uncommon, discrimination was identical with/without gene panel (with/without: area under the curve = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.64-0.70). Only 7 of 17 PGVs in cases resulted in actionable risk category change. Extended case (n = 644)-control (n = 1779) series with TC8-DR-SNP143 identified 18.9% of controls and only 6.4% of stage 2+ cases at <1.4% 10-year risk and 20.7% of controls and 47.9% of stage 2+ cases at ≥5% 10-year risk. CONCLUSION: Further studies and economic analysis will determine whether adding panels to PRS is a cost-effective strategy for risk stratification.

Mammographic breast density and breast cancer risk in the Saudi population: a case-control study using visual and automated methods.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to establish risk of breast cancer based on breast density among Saudi women and to compare cancer prediction using different breast density methods. METHODS: 1140 pseudonymised screening mammograms from Saudi females were retrospectively collected. Breast density was assessed using Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) density categories and visual analogue scale (VAS) of 285 cases and 855 controls matched on age and body mass index. In a subset of 160 cases and 480 controls density was estimated by two automated methods, Volpara Density™ and predicted VAS (pVAS). Odds ratios (ORs) between the highest and second categories in BI-RADS and Volpara density grades, and highest vs lowest quartiles in VAS, pVAS and Volpara Density™, were estimated using conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: For BI-RADS, the OR was 6.69 (95% CI 2.79-16.06) in the highest vs second category and OR = 4.78 (95% CI 3.01-7.58) in the highest vs lowest quartile for VAS. In the subset, VAS was the strongest predictor OR = 7.54 (95% CI 3.86-14.74), followed by pVAS using raw images OR = 5.38 (95% CI 2.68-10.77) and Volpara Density ™ OR = 3.55, (95% CI 1.86-6.75) for highest vs lowest quartiles. The matched concordance index for VAS was 0.70 (95% CI 0.65-0.75) demonstrating better discrimination between cases and controls than all other methods. CONCLUSION: Increased mammographic density was strongly associated with risk of breast cancer among Saudi women. Radiologists' visual assessment of breast density is superior to automated methods. However, pVAS and Volpara Density ™ also significantly predicted breast cancer risk based on breast density. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Our study established an association between breast density and breast cancer in a Saudi population and compared the performance of automated methods. This provides a stepping-stone towards personalised screening using automated breast density methods.

Mammographic density change in a cohort of premenopausal women receiving tamoxifen for breast cancer prevention over 5 years.

BACKGROUND: A decrease in breast density due to tamoxifen preventive therapy might indicate greater benefit from the drug. It is not known whether mammographic density continues to decline after 1 year of therapy, or whether measures of breast density change are sufficiently stable for personalised recommendations. METHODS: Mammographic density was measured annually over up to 5 years in premenopausal women with no previous diagnosis of breast cancer but at increased risk of breast cancer attending a family-history clinic in Manchester, UK (baseline 2010-2013). Tamoxifen (20 mg/day) for prevention was prescribed for up to 5 years in one group; the other group did not receive tamoxifen and were matched by age. Fully automatic methods were used on mammograms over the 5-year follow-up: three area-based measures (NN-VAS, Stratus, Densitas) and one volumetric (Volpara). Additionally, percentage breast density at baseline and first follow-up mammograms was measured visually. The size of density declines at the first follow-up mammogram and thereafter was estimated using a linear mixed model adjusted for age and body mass index. The stability of density change at 1 year was assessed by evaluating mean squared error loss from predictions based on individual or mean density change at 1 year. RESULTS: Analysis used mammograms from 126 healthy premenopausal women before and as they received tamoxifen for prevention (median age 42 years) and 172 matched controls (median age 41 years), with median 3 years follow-up. There was a strong correlation between percentage density measures used on the same mammogram in both the tamoxifen and no tamoxifen groups (all correlation coeficients > 0.8). Tamoxifen reduced mean breast density in year 1 by approximately 17-25% of the inter-quartile range of four automated percentage density measures at baseline, and from year 2, it decreased further by approximately 2-7% per year. Predicting change at 2 years using individual change at 1 year was approximately 60-300% worse than using mean change at 1year. CONCLUSIONS: All measures showed a consistent and large average tamoxifen-induced change in density over the first year, and a continued decline thereafter. However, these measures of density change at 1 year were not stable on an individual basis.

Special Section Guest Editorial: Evaluation Methodologies for Clinical AI.

The editorial introduces the Special Section on Evaluation Methodologies for Clinical AI.

Young adulthood body mass index, adult weight gain and breast cancer risk: the PROCAS Study (United Kingdom).

BACKGROUND: We tested the hypothesis that body mass index (BMI) aged 20 years modifies the association of adult weight gain and breast cancer risk. METHODS: We recruited women (aged 47-73 years) into the PROCAS (Predicting Risk Of Cancer At Screening; Manchester, UK: 2009-2013) Study. In 47,042 women, we determined BMI at baseline and (by recall) at age 20 years, and derived weight changes. We estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for new breast cancer using Cox models and explored relationships between BMI aged 20 years, subsequent weight changes and breast cancer risk. RESULTS: With median follow-up of 5.6 years, 1142 breast cancers (post-menopausal at entry: 829) occurred. Among post-menopausal women at entry, BMI aged 20 years was inversely associated [HR per SD: 0.87 (95% CI: 0.79-0.95)], while absolute weight gain was associated with breast cancer [HR per SD:1.23 (95% CI: 1.14-1.32)]. For post-menopausal women who had a recall BMI aged 20 years <23.4 kg/m2 (75th percentile), absolute weight gain was associated with breast cancer [HR per SD: 1.31 (95% CIs: 1.21-1.42)], but there were no associations for women with a recall BMI aged 20 years of >23.4 kg/m2 (Pinteraction values <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Adult weight gain increased post-menopausal breast cancer risk only among women who were <23.4 kg/m2 aged 20 years.

Is there a safety-net effect with computer-aided detection?

Computer-aided detection (CAD) systems are used to aid readers interpreting screening mammograms. An expert reader searches the image initially unaided and then once again with the aid of CAD, which prompts automatically detected suspicious regions. This could lead to a "safety-net" effect, where the initial unaided search of the image is adversely affected by the fact that it is preliminary to an additional search with CAD and may, therefore, be less thorough. To investigate the existence of such an effect, we created a visual search experiment for nonexpert observers mirroring breast screening with CAD. Each observer searched 100 images for microcalcification clusters within synthetic images in both prompted (CAD) and unprompted (no-CAD) conditions. Fifty-two participants were recruited for the study, 48 of whom had their eye movements tracked in real-time; the other 4 participants could not be accurately calibrated, so only behavioral data were collected. In the CAD condition, before prompts were displayed, image coverage was significantly lower than coverage in the no-CAD condition ( t 47 = 5.29 , p < 0.0001 ). Observer sensitivity was significantly greater for targets marked by CAD than the same targets in the no-CAD condition ( t 51 = 6.56 , p < 0.001 ). For targets not marked by CAD, there was no significant difference in observer sensitivity in the CAD condition compared with the same targets in the no-CAD condition ( t 51 = 0.54 , p = 0.59 ). These results suggest that the initial search may be influenced by the subsequent availability of CAD; if so, cross-sectional CAD efficacy studies should account for the effect when estimating benefit.

A case-control evaluation of 143 single nucleotide polymorphisms for breast cancer risk stratification with classical factors and mammographic density.

Panels of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) stratify risk for breast cancer in women from the general population, but studies are needed assess their use in a fully comprehensive model including classical risk factors, mammographic density and more than 100 SNPs associated with breast cancer. A case-control study was designed (1,668 controls, 405 cases) in women aged 47-73 years attending routine screening in Manchester UK, and enrolled in a wider study to assess methods for risk assessment. Risk from classical questionnaire risk factors was assessed using the Tyrer-Cuzick model; mean percentage visual mammographic density was scored by two independent readers. DNA extracted from saliva was genotyped at selected SNPs using the OncoArray. A predefined polygenic risk score based on 143 SNPs was calculated (SNP143). The odds ratio (OR, and 95% confidence interval, CI) per interquartile range (IQ-OR) of SNP143 was estimated unadjusted and adjusted for Tyrer-Cuzick and breast density. Secondary analysis assessed risk by oestrogen receptor (ER) status. The primary polygenic risk score was well calibrated (O/E OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.86-1.34) and accuracy was retained after adjustment for Tyrer-Cuzick risk and mammographic density (IQ-OR unadjusted 2.12, 95% CI% 1.75-2.42; adjusted 2.06, 95% CI 1.75-2.42). SNP143 was a risk factor for ER+ and ER- breast cancer (adjusted IQ-OR, ER+ 2.11, 95% CI 1.78-2.51; ER- 1.81, 95% CI 1.16-2.84). In conclusion, polygenic risk scores based on a large number of SNPs improve risk stratification in combination with classical risk factors and mammographic density, and SNP143 was similarly predictive for ER-positive and ER-negative disease.

Risk-based breast cancer screening strategies in women.

The incidence of breast cancer continues to increase worldwide. Population-based screening is available in many countries but may not be the most efficient use of resources, thus interest in risk-based/stratified screening has grown significantly in recent years. An important part of risk-based screening is the incorporation of mammographic density (MD) and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) into risk prediction models to be combined with classical risk factors. In this article, we discuss different measures of MD and risk prediction models that are available. Risk-stratified screening options including supplemental or alternative screening modalities including digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), automated ultrasound (ABUS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are discussed, as well as potential risk-based interventions (diet and lifestyle, chemoprevention and risk-reducing surgery). Furthermore, we look at risk feedback in practice and the cost-effectiveness and acceptability of risk-based screening, highlighting some of the current challenges.

Breast cancer pathology and stage are better predicted by risk stratification models that include mammographic density and common genetic variants.

PURPOSE: To improve breast cancer risk stratification to enable more targeted early detection/prevention strategies that will better balance risks and benefits of population screening programmes. METHODS: 9362 of 57,902 women in the Predicting-Risk-Of-Cancer-At-Screening (PROCAS) study who were unaffected by breast cancer at study entry and provided DNA for a polygenic risk score (PRS). The PRS was analysed alongside mammographic density (density-residual-DR) and standard risk factors (Tyrer-Cuzick-model) to assess future risk of breast cancer based on tumour stage receptor expression and pathology. RESULTS: 195 prospective incident breast cancers had a prediction based on TC/DR/PRS which was informative for subsequent breast cancer overall [IQ-OR 2.25 (95% CI 1.89-2.68)] with excellent calibration-(0.99). The model performed particularly well in predicting higher stage stage 2+ IQ-OR 2.69 (95% CI 2.02-3.60) and ER + BCs (IQ-OR 2.36 (95% CI 1.93-2.89)). DR was most predictive for HER2+ and stage 2+ cancers but did not discriminate as well between poor and extremely good prognosis BC as either Tyrer-Cuzick or PRS. In contrast, PRS gave the highest OR for incident stage 2+ cancers, [IQR-OR 1.79 (95% CI 1.30-2.46)]. CONCLUSIONS: A combined approach using Tyrer-Cuzick/DR/PRS provides accurate risk stratification, particularly for poor prognosis cancers. This provides support for reducing the screening interval in high-risk women and increasing the screening interval in low-risk women defined by this model.

Prediction of reader estimates of mammographic density using convolutional neural networks.

Mammographic density is an important risk factor for breast cancer. In recent research, percentage density assessed visually using visual analogue scales (VAS) showed stronger risk prediction than existing automated density measures, suggesting readers may recognize relevant image features not yet captured by hand-crafted algorithms. With deep learning, it may be possible to encapsulate this knowledge in an automatic method. We have built convolutional neural networks (CNN) to predict density VAS scores from full-field digital mammograms. The CNNs are trained using whole-image mammograms, each labeled with the average VAS score of two independent readers. Each CNN learns a mapping between mammographic appearance and VAS score so that at test time, they can predict VAS score for an unseen image. Networks were trained using 67,520 mammographic images from 16,968 women and for model selection we used a dataset of 73,128 images. Two case-control sets of contralateral mammograms of screen detected cancers and prior images of women with cancers detected subsequently, matched to controls on age, menopausal status, parity, HRT and BMI, were used for evaluating performance on breast cancer prediction. In the case-control sets, odd ratios of cancer in the highest versus lowest quintile of percentage density were 2.49 (95% CI: 1.59 to 3.96) for screen-detected cancers and 4.16 (2.53 to 6.82) for priors, with matched concordance indices of 0.587 (0.542 to 0.627) and 0.616 (0.578 to 0.655), respectively. There was no significant difference between reader VAS and predicted VAS for the prior test set (likelihood ratio chi square, p = 0.134 ). Our fully automated method shows promising results for cancer risk prediction and is comparable with human performance.

A comparison of five methods of measuring mammographic density: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: High mammographic density is associated with both risk of cancers being missed at mammography, and increased risk of developing breast cancer. Stratification of breast cancer prevention and screening requires mammographic density measures predictive of cancer. This study compares five mammographic density measures to determine the association with subsequent diagnosis of breast cancer and the presence of breast cancer at screening. METHODS: Women participating in the "Predicting Risk Of Cancer At Screening" (PROCAS) study, a study of cancer risk, completed questionnaires to provide personal information to enable computation of the Tyrer-Cuzick risk score. Mammographic density was assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS), thresholding (Cumulus) and fully-automated methods (Densitas, Quantra, Volpara) in contralateral breasts of 366 women with unilateral breast cancer (cases) detected at screening on entry to the study (Cumulus 311/366) and in 338 women with cancer detected subsequently. Three controls per case were matched using age, body mass index category, hormone replacement therapy use and menopausal status. Odds ratios (OR) between the highest and lowest quintile, based on the density distribution in controls, for each density measure were estimated by conditional logistic regression, adjusting for classic risk factors. RESULTS: The strongest predictor of screen-detected cancer at study entry was VAS, OR 4.37 (95% CI 2.72-7.03) in the highest vs lowest quintile of percent density after adjustment for classical risk factors. Volpara, Densitas and Cumulus gave ORs for the highest vs lowest quintile of 2.42 (95% CI 1.56-3.78), 2.17 (95% CI 1.41-3.33) and 2.12 (95% CI 1.30-3.45), respectively. Quantra was not significantly associated with breast cancer (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67-1.54). Similar results were found for subsequent cancers, with ORs of 4.48 (95% CI 2.79-7.18), 2.87 (95% CI 1.77-4.64) and 2.34 (95% CI 1.50-3.68) in highest vs lowest quintiles of VAS, Volpara and Densitas, respectively. Quantra gave an OR in the highest vs lowest quintile of 1.32 (95% CI 0.85-2.05). CONCLUSIONS: Visual density assessment demonstrated a strong relationship with cancer, despite known inter-observer variability; however, it is impractical for population-based screening. Percentage density measured by Volpara and Densitas also had a strong association with breast cancer risk, amongst the automated measures evaluated, providing practical automated methods for risk stratification.

Use of Single-Nucleotide Polymorphisms and Mammographic Density Plus Classic Risk Factors for Breast Cancer Risk Prediction.

IMPORTANCE: Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) have demonstrated an association with breast cancer susceptibility, but there is limited evidence on how to incorporate them into current breast cancer risk prediction models. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a panel of 18 SNPs (SNP18) may be used to predict breast cancer in combination with classic risk factors and mammographic density. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cohort study enrolled a subcohort of 9363 women, aged 46 to 73 years, without a previous breast cancer diagnosis from the larger prospective cohort of the PROCAS study (Predicting Risk of Cancer at Screening) specifically to evaluate breast cancer risk-assessment methods. Enrollment took place from October 2009 through June 2015 from multiple population-based screening centers in Greater Manchester, England. Follow-up continued through January 5, 2017. EXPOSURES: Genotyping of 18 SNPs, visual-assessment percentage mammographic density, and classic risk assessed by the Tyrer-Cuzick risk model from a self-completed questionnaire at cohort entry. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The predictive ability of SNP18 for breast cancer diagnosis (invasive and ductal carcinoma in situ) was assessed using logistic regression odds ratios per interquartile range of the predicted risk. RESULTS: A total of 9363 women were enrolled in this study (mean [range] age, 59 [46-73] years). Of these, 466 were found to have breast cancer (271 prevalent; 195 incident). SNP18 was similarly predictive when unadjusted or adjusted for mammographic density and classic factors (odds ratios per interquartile range, respectively, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.38-1.77 and 1.53; 95% CI, 1.35-1.74), with observed risks being very close to expected (adjusted observed-to-expected odds ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.69-1.28). A combined risk assessment indicated 18% of the subcohort to be at 5% or greater 10-year risk, compared with 30% of all cancers, 35% of interval-detected cancers, and 42% of stage 2+ cancers. In contrast, 33% of the subcohort were at less than 2% risk but accounted for only 18%, 17%, and 15% of the total, interval, and stage 2+ breast cancers, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: SNP18 added substantial information to risk assessment based on the Tyrer-Cuzick model and mammographic density. A combined risk is likely to aid risk-stratified screening and prevention strategies.

Mammographic density and breast cancer risk in breast screening assessment cases and women with a family history of breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Mammographic density has been shown to be a strong independent predictor of breast cancer and a causative factor in reducing the sensitivity of mammography. There remain questions as to the use of mammographic density information in the context of screening and risk management, and of the association with cancer in populations known to be at increased risk of breast cancer. AIM: To assess the association of breast density with presence of cancer by measuring mammographic density visually as a percentage, and with two automated volumetric methods, Quantra™ and VolparaDensity™. METHODS: The TOMosynthesis with digital MammographY (TOMMY) study of digital breast tomosynthesis in the Breast Screening Programme of the National Health Service (NHS) of the United Kingdom (UK) included 6020 breast screening assessment cases (of whom 1158 had breast cancer) and 1040 screened women with a family history of breast cancer (of whom two had breast cancer). We assessed the association of each measure with breast cancer risk in these populations at enhanced risk, using logistic regression adjusted for age and total breast volume as a surrogate for body mass index (BMI). RESULTS: All density measures showed a positive association with presence of cancer and all declined with age. The strongest effect was seen with Volpara absolute density, with a significant 3% (95% CI 1-5%) increase in risk per 10 cm3 of dense tissue. The effect of Volpara volumetric density on risk was stronger for large and grade 3 tumours. CONCLUSIONS: Automated absolute breast density is a predictor of breast cancer risk in populations at enhanced risk due to either positive mammographic findings or family history. In the screening context, density could be a trigger for more intensive imaging.

Three-dimensional segmentation of breast masses from digital breast tomosynthesis images.

Assessment of three-dimensional (3-D) morphology and volume of breast masses is important for cancer diagnosis, staging, and treatment but cannot be derived from conventional mammography. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) provides data from which 3-D mass segmentation could be obtained. Our method combined Gaussian mixture models based on intensity and a texture measure indicative of in-focus structure, gray-level variance. Thresholding these voxel probabilities, weighted by distance to the estimated mass center, gave the final 3-D segmentation. Evaluation used 40 masses annotated twice by a consultant radiologist on in-focus slices in two diagnostic views. Human intraobserver variability was assessed as the overlap between repeated annotations (median 77% and range 25% to 91%). Comparing the segmented mass outline with probability-weighted ground truth from these annotations, median agreement was 68%, and range was 7% to 88%. Annotated and segmented diameters correlated well with histological mass size (both Spearman's rank correlations [Formula: see text]). The volumetric segmentation demonstrated better agreement with tumor volumes estimated from pathology than volume derived from radiological annotations (95% limits of agreement [Formula: see text] to 11 ml and [Formula: see text] to 41 ml, respectively). We conclude that it is feasible to assess 3-D mass morphology and volume from DBT, and the method has the potential to aid breast cancer management.

A randomised trial of screening with digital breast tomosynthesis plus conventional digital 2D mammography versus 2D mammography alone in younger higher risk women.

INTRODUCTION: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has been shown to increase invasive cancer detection rates at screening compared to full field digital (2D) mammography alone, and some studies have reported a reduction in the screening recall rate. No prospective randomised studies of DBT have previously been published. This study compares recall rates with 2D mammography with and without concurrent DBT in women in their forties with a family history of breast cancer undergoing incident screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Asymptomatic women aged 40-49 who had previously undergone mammography for an increased risk of breast cancer were recruited in two screening centres. Participants were randomised to screening with 2D mammography only at the first study screen followed a year later by screening with 2D plus DBT, or vice versa. Recall rates were compared using an intention to treat analysis. Reading performance was analysed for the larger centre. RESULTS: 1227 women were recruited. 1221 first screens (604 2D, 617 2D+DBT) and 1124second screens (558 2D+DBT, 566 2D) were analysed. Eleven women had screen-detected cancers: 5 after 2D, 6 after 2D+DBT. The false positive recall rates were 2.4% for 2D and 2.2% for 2D+DBT (p=0.89). There was a significantly greater reduction between rounds in the number of women with abnormal reads who were not recalled after consensus/arbitration with 2D+DBT than 2D (p=0.023). CONCLUSION: The addition of DBT to 2D mammography in incident screening did not lead to a significant reduction in recall rate. DBT may increase reader uncertainty until DBT screening experience is acquired.

Preoperative implant selection for unilateral breast reconstruction using 3D imaging with the Microsoft Kinect sensor.

AIMS: This study aimed to investigate whether breast volume measured preoperatively using a Kinect 3D sensor could be used to determine the most appropriate implant size for reconstruction. METHODS: Ten patients underwent 3D imaging before and after unilateral implant-based reconstruction. Imaging used seven configurations, varying patient pose and Kinect location, which were compared regarding suitability for volume measurement. Four methods of defining the breast boundary for automated volume calculation were compared, and repeatability assessed over five repetitions. RESULTS: The most repeatable breast boundary annotation used an ellipse to track the inframammary fold and a plane describing the chest wall (coefficient of repeatability: 70 ml). The most reproducible imaging position comparing pre- and postoperative volume measurement of the healthy breast was achieved for the sitting patient with elevated arms and Kinect centrally positioned (coefficient of repeatability: 141 ml). Optimal implant volume was calculated by correcting used implant volume by the observed postoperative asymmetry. It was possible to predict implant size using a linear model derived from preoperative volume measurement of the healthy breast (coefficient of determination R2 = 0.78, standard error of prediction 120 ml). Mastectomy specimen weight and experienced surgeons' choice showed similar predictive ability (both: R2 = 0.74, standard error: 141/142 ml). A leave one-out validation showed that in 61% of cases, 3D imaging could predict implant volume to within 10%; however for 17% of cases it was >30%. CONCLUSION: This technology has the potential to facilitate reconstruction surgery planning and implant procurement to maximise symmetry after unilateral reconstruction.

Does Reader Performance with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Vary according to Experience with Two-dimensional Mammography?

Purpose To assess whether individual reader performance with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and two-dimensional (2D) mammography varies with number of years of experience or volume of 2D mammograms read. Materials and Methods After written informed consent was obtained, 8869 women (age range, 29-85 years; mean age, 56 years) were recruited into the TOMMY trial (A Comparison of Tomosynthesis with Digital Mammography in the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Program), an ethically approved, multicenter, multireader, retrospective reading study, between July 2011 and March 2013. Each case was read prospectively for clinical assessment and to establish ground truth. A retrospective reading data set of 7060 cases was created and randomly allocated for independent blinded review of (a) 2D mammograms, (b) DBT images and 2D mammograms, and (c) synthetic 2D mammograms and DBT images, without access to previous examinations. Readers (19 radiologists, three advanced practitioner radiographers, and two breast clinicians) who had 3-25 (median, 10) years of experience in the U.K. National Health Service Breast Screening Program and read 5000-13 000 (median, 8000) cases per annum were included in this study. Specificity was analyzed according to reader type and years and volume of experience, and then both specificity and sensitivity were analyzed by matched inference. The median duration of experience (10 years) was used as the cutoff point for comparison of reader performance. Results Specificity improved with the addition of DBT for all readers. This was significant for all staff groups (56% vs 68% and 49% vs 67% [P < .0001] for radiologists and advanced practitioner radiographers, respectively; 46% vs 55% [P = .02] for breast clinicians). Sensitivity was improved for 19 of 24 (79%) readers and was significantly higher for those with less than 10 years of experience (91% vs 86%; P = .03) and those with total mammographic experience of fewer than 80 000 cases (88% vs 86%; P = .03). Conclusion The addition of DBT to conventional 2D screening mammography improved specificity for all readers, but the gain in sensitivity was greater for readers with less than 10 years of experience.