14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      High-Risk Breast Lesions: A Machine Learning Model to Predict Pathologic Upgrade and Reduce Unnecessary Surgical Excision

      , , , , ,
      Radiology
      Radiological Society of North America (RSNA)

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose To develop a machine learning model that allows high-risk breast lesions (HRLs) diagnosed with image-guided needle biopsy that require surgical excision to be distinguished from HRLs that are at low risk for upgrade to cancer at surgery and thus could be surveilled. Materials and Methods Consecutive patients with biopsy-proven HRLs who underwent surgery or at least 2 years of imaging follow-up from June 2006 to April 2015 were identified. A random forest machine learning model was developed to identify HRLs at low risk for upgrade to cancer. Traditional features such as age and HRL histologic results were used in the model, as were text features from the biopsy pathologic report. Results One thousand six HRLs were identified, with a cancer upgrade rate of 11.4% (115 of 1006). A machine learning random forest model was developed with 671 HRLs and tested with an independent set of 335 HRLs. Among the most important traditional features were age and HRL histologic results (eg, atypical ductal hyperplasia). An important text feature from the pathologic reports was "severely atypical." Instead of surgical excision of all HRLs, if those categorized with the model to be at low risk for upgrade were surveilled and the remainder were excised, then 97.4% (37 of 38) of malignancies would have been diagnosed at surgery, and 30.6% (91 of 297) of surgeries of benign lesions could have been avoided. Conclusion This study provides proof of concept that a machine learning model can be applied to predict the risk of upgrade of HRLs to cancer. Use of this model could decrease unnecessary surgery by nearly one-third and could help guide clinical decision making with regard to surveillance versus surgical excision of HRLs. © RSNA, 2017.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Benefits and Harms of Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.

          Patients need to consider both benefits and harms of breast cancer screening.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Harms of Breast Cancer Screening: Systematic Review to Update the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation.

            In 2009, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended biennial mammography screening for women aged 50 to 74 years and selective screening for those aged 40 to 49 years.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Implementing Machine Learning in Radiology Practice and Research.

              The purposes of this article are to describe concepts that radiologists should understand to evaluate machine learning projects, including common algorithms, supervised as opposed to unsupervised techniques, statistical pitfalls, and data considerations for training and evaluation, and to briefly describe ethical dilemmas and legal risk.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Radiology
                Radiology
                Radiological Society of North America (RSNA)
                0033-8419
                1527-1315
                October 17 2017
                October 17 2017
                :
                :
                : 170549
                Article
                10.1148/radiol.2017170549
                29039725
                58c4c88a-3e58-427b-81ee-94713c7d50a3
                © 2017
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article