Chika F Ezeana, Tiancheng He, Tejal A Patel, Virginia Kaklamani, Maryam Elmi, Erika Brigmon, Pamela M Otto, Kenneth A Kist, Heather Speck, Lin Wang, Joe Ensor, Ya-Chen T Shih, Bumyang Kim, I-Wen Pan, Adam L Cohen, Kristen Kelley, David Spak, Wei T Yang, Jenny C Chang, Stephen T C Wong
{"title":"A Deep Learning Decision Support Tool to Improve Risk Stratification and Reduce Unnecessary Biopsies in BI-RADS 4 Mammograms.","authors":"Chika F Ezeana, Tiancheng He, Tejal A Patel, Virginia Kaklamani, Maryam Elmi, Erika Brigmon, Pamela M Otto, Kenneth A Kist, Heather Speck, Lin Wang, Joe Ensor, Ya-Chen T Shih, Bumyang Kim, I-Wen Pan, Adam L Cohen, Kristen Kelley, David Spak, Wei T Yang, Jenny C Chang, Stephen T C Wong","doi":"10.1148/ryai.220259","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the performance of a biopsy decision support algorithmic model, the intelligent-augmented breast cancer risk calculator (iBRISK), on a multicenter patient dataset.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>iBRISK was previously developed by applying deep learning to clinical risk factors and mammographic descriptors from 9700 patient records at the primary institution and validated using another 1078 patients. All patients were seen from March 2006 to December 2016. In this multicenter study, iBRISK was further assessed on an independent, retrospective dataset (January 2015-June 2019) from three major health care institutions in Texas, with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 4 lesions. Data were dichotomized and trichotomized to measure precision in risk stratification and probability of malignancy (POM) estimation. iBRISK score was also evaluated as a continuous predictor of malignancy, and cost savings analysis was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The iBRISK model's accuracy was 89.5%, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.92, 0.95), sensitivity was 100%, and specificity was 81%. A total of 4209 women (median age, 56 years [IQR, 45-65 years]) were included in the multicenter dataset. Only two of 1228 patients (0.16%) in the \"low\" POM group had malignant lesions, while in the \"high\" POM group, the malignancy rate was 85.9%. iBRISK score as a continuous predictor of malignancy yielded an AUC of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.97, 0.98). Estimated potential cost savings were more than $420 million.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>iBRISK demonstrated high sensitivity in the malignancy prediction of BI-RADS 4 lesions. iBRISK may safely obviate biopsies in up to 50% of patients in low or moderate POM groups and reduce biopsy-associated costs.<b>Keywords:</b> Mammography, Breast, Oncology, Biopsy/Needle Aspiration, Radiomics, Precision Mammography, AI-augmented Biopsy Decision Support Tool, Breast Cancer Risk Calculator, BI-RADS 4 Mammography Risk Stratification, Overbiopsy Reduction, Probability of Malignancy (POM) Assessment, Biopsy-based Positive Predictive Value (PPV3) <i>Supplemental material is available for this article.</i> Published under a CC BY 4.0 license.See also the commentary by McDonald and Conant in this issue.</p>","PeriodicalId":8,"journal":{"name":"ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering","volume":" ","pages":"e220259"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10698614/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1148/ryai.220259","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the performance of a biopsy decision support algorithmic model, the intelligent-augmented breast cancer risk calculator (iBRISK), on a multicenter patient dataset.
Materials and methods: iBRISK was previously developed by applying deep learning to clinical risk factors and mammographic descriptors from 9700 patient records at the primary institution and validated using another 1078 patients. All patients were seen from March 2006 to December 2016. In this multicenter study, iBRISK was further assessed on an independent, retrospective dataset (January 2015-June 2019) from three major health care institutions in Texas, with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 4 lesions. Data were dichotomized and trichotomized to measure precision in risk stratification and probability of malignancy (POM) estimation. iBRISK score was also evaluated as a continuous predictor of malignancy, and cost savings analysis was performed.
Results: The iBRISK model's accuracy was 89.5%, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.92, 0.95), sensitivity was 100%, and specificity was 81%. A total of 4209 women (median age, 56 years [IQR, 45-65 years]) were included in the multicenter dataset. Only two of 1228 patients (0.16%) in the "low" POM group had malignant lesions, while in the "high" POM group, the malignancy rate was 85.9%. iBRISK score as a continuous predictor of malignancy yielded an AUC of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.97, 0.98). Estimated potential cost savings were more than $420 million.
Conclusion: iBRISK demonstrated high sensitivity in the malignancy prediction of BI-RADS 4 lesions. iBRISK may safely obviate biopsies in up to 50% of patients in low or moderate POM groups and reduce biopsy-associated costs.Keywords: Mammography, Breast, Oncology, Biopsy/Needle Aspiration, Radiomics, Precision Mammography, AI-augmented Biopsy Decision Support Tool, Breast Cancer Risk Calculator, BI-RADS 4 Mammography Risk Stratification, Overbiopsy Reduction, Probability of Malignancy (POM) Assessment, Biopsy-based Positive Predictive Value (PPV3) Supplemental material is available for this article. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license.See also the commentary by McDonald and Conant in this issue.
期刊介绍:
ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering is the leading journal in the field of biomaterials, serving as an international forum for publishing cutting-edge research and innovative ideas on a broad range of topics:
Applications and Health – implantable tissues and devices, prosthesis, health risks, toxicology
Bio-interactions and Bio-compatibility – material-biology interactions, chemical/morphological/structural communication, mechanobiology, signaling and biological responses, immuno-engineering, calcification, coatings, corrosion and degradation of biomaterials and devices, biophysical regulation of cell functions
Characterization, Synthesis, and Modification – new biomaterials, bioinspired and biomimetic approaches to biomaterials, exploiting structural hierarchy and architectural control, combinatorial strategies for biomaterials discovery, genetic biomaterials design, synthetic biology, new composite systems, bionics, polymer synthesis
Controlled Release and Delivery Systems – biomaterial-based drug and gene delivery, bio-responsive delivery of regulatory molecules, pharmaceutical engineering
Healthcare Advances – clinical translation, regulatory issues, patient safety, emerging trends
Imaging and Diagnostics – imaging agents and probes, theranostics, biosensors, monitoring
Manufacturing and Technology – 3D printing, inks, organ-on-a-chip, bioreactor/perfusion systems, microdevices, BioMEMS, optics and electronics interfaces with biomaterials, systems integration
Modeling and Informatics Tools – scaling methods to guide biomaterial design, predictive algorithms for structure-function, biomechanics, integrating bioinformatics with biomaterials discovery, metabolomics in the context of biomaterials
Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine – basic and applied studies, cell therapies, scaffolds, vascularization, bioartificial organs, transplantation and functionality, cellular agriculture