Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
To evaluate the diagnostic performance of deep learning using the Residual Networks 50 (ResNet50) neural network constructed from different segmentations for distinguishing malignant and benign non-mass enhancement (NME) on breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and conduct a comparison with radiologists with various levels of experience.
Materials and methods
A total of 84 consecutive patients with 86 lesions (51 malignant, 35 benign) presenting NME on breast MRI were analyzed. Three radiologists with different levels of experience evaluated all examinations, based on the Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon and categorization. For the deep learning method, one expert radiologist performed lesion annotation manually using the early phase of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI. Two segmentation methods were applied: a precise segmentation was carefully set to include only the enhancing area, and a rough segmentation covered the whole enhancing region, including the intervenient non-enhancing area. ResNet50 was implemented using the DCE MRI input. The diagnostic performance of the radiologists’ readings and deep learning were then compared using receiver operating curve analysis.
Results
The ResNet50 model from precise segmentation achieved diagnostic accuracy equivalent [area under the curve (AUC) = 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90, 0.93] to that of a highly experienced radiologist (AUC = 0.89, 95% CI 0.81, 0.96; p = 0.45). Even the model from rough segmentation showed diagnostic performance equivalent to a board-certified radiologist (AUC = 0.80, 95% CI 0.78, 0.82 vs. AUC = 0.79, 95% CI 0.70, 0.89, respectively). Both ResNet50 models from the precise and rough segmentation exceeded the diagnostic accuracy of a radiology resident (AUC = 0.64, 95% CI 0.52, 0.76).
Conclusion
These findings suggest that the deep learning model from ResNet50 has the potential to ensure accuracy in the diagnosis of NME on breast MRI.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging
Reference29 articles.
1. Mann RM, Balleyguier C, Baltzer PA, Bick U, Colin C, Cornford E, et al. Breast MRI: EUSOBI recommendations for women’s information. Eur Radiol. 2015;25:3669–78.
2. Radiology ACo. ACR practice parameter for the performance of contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast. 2018:https://www.acr.org/-/media/acr/files/practice-parameters/mr-contrast-breast.pdf.
3. American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS), vol 2013, 5th edn. American College of Radiology. 2013.
4. Chadashvili T, Ghosh E, Fein-Zachary V, Mehta TS, Venkataraman S, Dialani V, et al. Nonmass enhancement on breast MRI: review of patterns with radiologic-pathologic correlation and discussion of management. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204:219–27.
5. Lunkiewicz M, Forte S, Freiwald B, Singer G, Leo C, Kubik-Huch RA. Interobserver variability and likelihood of malignancy for fifth edition BI-RADS MRI descriptors in non-mass breast lesions. Eur Radiol. 2020;30:77–86.
Cited by
8 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献