Differences between human and machine perception in medical diagnosis
Makino, Taro; JastrzÄ™bski, StanisÅ‚aw; Oleszkiewicz, Witold; Chacko, Celin; Ehrenpreis, Robin; Samreen, Naziya; Chhor, Chloe; Kim, Eric; Lee, Jiyon; Pysarenko, Kristine; Reig, Beatriu; Toth, Hildegard; Awal, Divya; Du, Linda; Kim, Alice; Park, James; Sodickson, Daniel K; Heacock, Laura; Moy, Linda; Cho, Kyunghyun; Geras, Krzysztof J
Deep neural networks (DNNs) show promise in image-based medical diagnosis, but cannot be fully trusted since they can fail for reasons unrelated to underlying pathology. Humans are less likely to make such superficial mistakes, since they use features that are grounded on medical science. It is therefore important to know whether DNNs use different features than humans. Towards this end, we propose a framework for comparing human and machine perception in medical diagnosis. We frame the comparison in terms of perturbation robustness, and mitigate Simpson's paradox by performing a subgroup analysis. The framework is demonstrated with a case study in breast cancer screening, where we separately analyze microcalcifications and soft tissue lesions. While it is inconclusive whether humans and DNNs use different features to detect microcalcifications, we find that for soft tissue lesions, DNNs rely on high frequency components ignored by radiologists. Moreover, these features are located outside of the region of the images found most suspicious by radiologists. This difference between humans and machines was only visible through subgroup analysis, which highlights the importance of incorporating medical domain knowledge into the comparison.
Axillary Adenopathy after COVID-19 Vaccine: No Reason to Delay Screening Mammogram
Wolfson, Stacey; Kim, Eric; Plaunova, Anastasia; Bukhman, Rita; Sarmiento, Ruth D; Samreen, Naziya; Awal, Divya; Sheth, Monica M; Toth, Hildegard B; Moy, Linda; Reig, Beatriu
Response to COVID-19 in breast imaging [Editorial]
Moy, L; Toth, H K; Newell, M S; Plecha, D; Leung, J W T; Harvey, J A
Breast MRI for Evaluation of Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy
Reig, Beatriu; Lewin, Alana A; Du, Linda; Heacock, Laura; Toth, Hildegard K; Heller, Samantha L; Gao, Yiming; Moy, Linda
Neoadjuvant therapy is increasingly being used to treat early-stage triple-negative and human epidermal growth factor 2-overexpressing breast cancers, as well as locally advanced and inflammatory breast cancers. The rationales for neoadjuvant therapy are to shrink tumor size and potentially decrease the extent of surgery, to serve as an in vivo test of response to therapy, and to reveal prognostic information for the patient. MRI is the most accurate modality to demonstrate response to therapy and to help ensure accurate presurgical planning. Changes in lesion diameter, volume, and enhancement are used to predict complete response, partial response, or nonresponse to therapy. However, residual disease may be overestimated or underestimated at MRI. Fibrosis, necrotic tumors, and residual benign masses may be causes of overestimation of residual disease. Nonmass lesions, invasive lobular carcinoma, hormone receptor-positive tumors, nonconcentric shrinkage patterns, the use of antiangiogenic therapy, and late-enhancing foci may be causes of underestimation of residual disease. In patients with known axillary lymph node metastasis, neoadjuvant therapy may be followed by targeted axillary dissection to avoid the potential morbidity associated with an axillary lymph node dissection. Diffusion-weighted imaging, radiomics, machine learning, and deep learning methods are under investigation to improve MRI accuracy in predicting treatment response.Â©RSNA, 2021.
Abbreviated MR Imaging for Breast Cancer
Heacock, Laura; Lewin, Alana A; Toth, Hildegard K; Moy, Linda; Reig, Beatriu
Breast MR imaging is the most sensitive imaging method for the detection of breast cancer and detects more aggressive malignancies than mammography and ultrasound examination. Despite these advantages, breast MR imaging has low use rates for breast cancer screening. Abbreviated breast MR imaging, in which a limited number of breast imaging sequences are obtained, has been proposed as a way to solve cost and patient tolerance issues while preserving the high cancer detection rate of breast MR imaging. This review discusses abbreviated breast MR imaging, including protocols, multicenter clinical trial results, clinical workflow implementation challenges, and future directions.
Abbreviated breast MRI: Road to clinical implementation
Heacock, Laura; Reig, Beatriu; Lewin, Alana A.; Toth, Hildegard K.; Moy, Linda; Lee, Cindy S.
Breast MRI offers high sensitivity for breast cancer detection, with preferential detection of high-grade invasive cancers when compared to mammography and ultrasound. Despite the clear benefits of breast MRI in cancer screening, its cost, patient tolerance, and low utilization remain key issues. Abbreviated breast MRI, in which only a select number of sequences and postcontrast imaging are acquired, exploits the high sensitivity of breast MRI while reducing table time and reading time to maximize availability, patient tolerance, and accessibility. Worldwide studies of varying patient populations have demonstrated that the comparable diagnostic accuracy of abbreviated breast MRI is comparable to a full diagnostic protocol, highlighting the emerging role of abbreviated MRI screening in patients with an intermediate and high lifetime risk of breast cancer. The purpose of this review is to summarize the background and current literature relating to abbreviated MRI, highlight various protocols utilized in current multicenter clinical trials, describe workflow and clinical implementation issues, and discuss the future of abbreviated protocols, including advanced MRI techniques.
Overstated Harms of Breast Cancer Screening? A Large Outcomes Analysis of Complications Associated With 9-Gauge Stereotactic Vacuum-Assisted Breast Biopsy
Lin, Leng Leng Young; Gao, Yiming; Lewin, Alana A; Toth, Hildegard K; Heller, Samantha L; Moy, Linda
OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to assess the rate, type, and severity of complications related to 9-gauge stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (SVAB) and to delineate associated factors that may contribute to a higher rate of complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:This retrospective study included 4776 patients who underwent SVAB between 2003 and 2016. A total of 319 patients with documented postbiopsy complications were identified. Complications were subcategorized as bleeding, pain, lightheadedness, bruising, and other complications, and their severity was classified as minor, moderate, or severe. Hematoma volumes were correlated with biopsy location and complication severity. A group of control subjects who underwent SVAB but had no complications was compared with the group of study patients with regard to age, biopsy location, lesion type, and pathologic findings. Postbiopsy screening adherence was assessed. Statistical analyses were performed using the Fisher exact, Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis, and Spearman rank correlation tests. RESULTS:) did not correspond to the severity of complications. Larger hematoma volumes were associated with a posterior biopsy location (p = 0.008). The rate of return to annual screening after biopsy was not adversely affected by the presence of biopsy complications. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Clinically significant complications associated with SVAB were exceedingly rare (0.3%) in this large study spanning 13 years.
Canceled MRI-guided Breast Biopsies Due to Nonvisualization: Follow-up and Outcomes
Pinnamaneni, Niveditha; Moy, Linda; Gao, Yiming; Melsaether, Amy N; Babb, James S; Toth, Hildegard K; Heller, Samantha L
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to evaluate breast lesion outcomes in patients after canceled MRI-guided breast biopsy due to lesion nonvisualization. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Electronic medical records (January 2007-December 2014) were searched for patients with canceled magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided breast biopsies due to lesion nonvisualization. A total of 1403 MRI-detected lesions were scheduled for MRI-guided biopsy and 89 were canceled because of nonvisualization. Imaging studies and medical records were reviewed for patient demographics, lesion characteristics, and subsequent malignancy. Patients without adequate MRI follow-up imaging were excluded. Statistical analysis was employed to determine if patient demographics or lesion characteristics were predictive of lesion resolution or lesion biopsy after subsequent follow-up. RESULTS:Eighty-nine (6.3% [89/1403]; 95% confidence interval, 5.2%-7.7%) biopsies in 89 women were canceled because of nonvisualization. Follow-up MRIs greater than 5.5 months were available for 60.7% (54/89) of women. In 74.1% (40/54) of these patients, the lesions completely resolved on follow-up. In 25.9% (14/54) of the patients, the lesion persisted on follow-up; 42.9% (6/14) of these patients underwent biopsy. One case (1.9% [1/54]) yielded ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion at the 6-month follow-up. No patient demographics or lesion features were associated with lesion resolution or lesion biopsy. CONCLUSIONS:The majority of canceled MRI-guided biopsy lesions resolved on later follow-up; however, because of the small possibility of a missed malignancy, follow-up MRI imaging at 6 months is recommended.
Stereotactic Breast Biopsy With Benign Results Does Not Negatively Affect Future Screening Adherence
Lewin, Alana A; Gao, Yiming; Lin Young, Leng Leng; Albert, Marissa L; Babb, James S; Toth, Hildegard K; Moy, Linda; Heller, Samantha L
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To evaluate whether false-positive stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (SVAB) affects subsequent mammographic screening adherence. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:tests. RESULTS:There were 913 SVABs performed in 2012 to 2014 for imaging detected lesions; of these, malignant or high-risk lesions or biopsies resulting in a recommendation of surgical excision were excluded, leaving 395 SVABs yielding benign pathology in 395 women. Findings were matched with a control population consisting of 45,126 women who had a BI-RADS 1 or 2 screening mammogram and did not undergo breast biopsy. In all, 191 of 395 (48.4%) women with a biopsy with benign results and 22,668 of 45,126 (50.2%) women without biopsy returned for annual follow-up >9 months and â‰¤18 months after the index examination (PÂ = .479). In addition, 57 of 395 (14.4%) women with a biopsy with benign results and 3,336 of 45,126 (7.4%) women without biopsy returned for annual follow-up >18 months after the index examination (P < .001). Older women, women with personal history of breast cancer, and women with postbiopsy complication after benign SVAB were more likely to return for screening (PÂ = .026, PÂ = .028, and PÂ = .026, respectively). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The findings in our study suggest that SVABs with benign results do not negatively impact screening mammography adherence. The previously described "harms" of false-positive mammography and biopsy may be exaggerated.
Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Practice Patterns Following 2011 FDA Approval: A Survey of Breast Imaging Radiologists
Gao, Yiming; Babb, James S; Toth, Hildegard K; Moy, Linda; Heller, Samantha L
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate uptake, patterns of use, and perception of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) among practicing breast radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional Review Board exemption was obtained for this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant electronic survey, sent to 7023 breast radiologists identified via the Radiological Society of North America database. Respondents were asked of their geographic location and practice type. DBT users reported length of use, selection criteria, interpretive sequences, recall rate, and reading time. Radiologist satisfaction with DBT as a diagnostic tool was assessed (1-5 scale). RESULTS: There were 1156 (16.5%) responders, 65.8% from the United States and 34.2% from abroad. Of these, 749 (68.6%) use DBT; 22.6% in academia, 56.5% private, and 21% other. Participants are equally likely to report use of DBT if they worked in academics versus in private practice (78.2% [169 of 216] vs 71% [423 of 596]) (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval: 0.87-1.40; P = 1.000). Of nonusers, 43% (147 of 343) plan to adopt DBT. No US regional differences in uptake were observed (P = 1.000). Although 59.3% (416 of 702) of DBT users include synthetic 2D (s2D) for interpretation, only 24.2% (170 of 702) use s2D alone. Majority (66%; 441 of 672) do not perform DBT-guided procedures. Radiologist (76.6%) (544 of 710) satisfaction with DBT as a diagnostic tool is high (score >/= 4/5). CONCLUSIONS: DBT is being adopted worldwide across all practice types, yet variations in examination indication, patient selection, utilization of s2D images, and access to DBT-guided procedures persist, highlighting the need for consensus and standardization.