AI platform in mammography to screening breast cancer: A sole-center experience.

Abstract

e18052 {\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg936\cocoartf1347\cocoasubrtf570 {\fonttbl\f0\froman\fcharset0 Times-Roman;\f1\fnil\fcharset0 Calibri;\f2\fswiss\fcharset0 Helvetica; \f3\fnil\fcharset134 STHeitiSC-Light;\f4\froman\fcharset0 TimesNewRomanPSMT;} {\colortbl;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue0;} \paperw11900\paperh16840\margl1440\margr1440\vieww25400\viewh13600\viewkind0 \deftab720 \pard\pardeftab720 \f0\fs24 \cf2 \expnd0\expndtw0\kerning0 \outl0\strokewidth0 \strokec2 AI platform in mammagraphy to screening breast cancer: a sole center experence. \f1\fs21 \cf0 \kerning1\expnd0\expndtw0 \outl0\strokewidth0 \ \pard\pardeftab720\ri714\qj \cf0 Background: The aim of this study was to use deep convolutional neural network (DCNN) to relieve radiologists ' burden and to minimize misses and interpretation errors of suspicious lesions at digital mammography. Methods: We developed and trained the DCNN model on the training set, then validated it in an internal validation set. The labeled data were used for training the DCNN model, and the mass detection, calcification detection and benign and malignant diagnosis were interpreted respectively. After verifying the feasibility of the DCNN model in the diagnosis of breast cancer, we gradually increased the number of cases in the training set and established the verification set to test the training results. The latest training sets include 21100 atlas of our hospital between April 2010 and October 2017, among which the malignant case atlas is 1774. Each atlas contains 2 ipsilateral mammography images. The verification set includes 1307 atlas, among which the malignant case atlas is 248. Results: The DCNN model achieved high performance in identifying breast cancer patients in the validation sets tested, with sensitivity of 98.02%, specificity of 91.86% \f3 \'a3\'ac \f2 and area under the curve values of 0.9813. As for mass detection, we reached a recall rate of 89.6% on the premise of lowing the false positive to 0.168%. For the latest clinical data between October 2018 and November 2018 including 1043 atlas from 576 patients, the sensitivity was 78.6% (95%CI 62.8-89.1) versus 90.5% (95%CI 76.5 \f4 - \f2 96.9; p=0.021) and specificity was 93.4% (95%CI 91.6 \f4 - \f2 94.8) versus 82.7% (95%CI 80.2 \f4 - \f2 85 \f4 . \f2 0; p<0.0001). Conclusions: The DCNN model showed improved specificity in diagnosis breast cancer compared with a group of skilled radiologists. As the number of cases in the training set increases, the capacity of DCNN model will be further improved.