Search

Finding new ways to cost-effectively facilitate population screening and improve cancer diagnoses at an early stage supported by data-driven AI models provides unprecedented opportunities to reduce cancer related mortality. This work presents the INCISIVE project initiative towards enhancing AI solutions for health imaging by unifying, harmonizing, and securely sharing scattered cancer-related data to ensure large datasets which are critically needed to develop and evaluate trustworthy AI models. The adopted solutions of the INCISIVE project have been outlined in terms of data collection, harmonization, data sharing, and federated data storage in compliance with legal, ethical, and FAIR principles. Experiences and examples feature breast cancer data integration and mammography collection, indicating the current progress, challenges, and future directions. This research received funding mainly from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement no 952179. It was also partially funded by the Ministry of Economy, Industry, and Competitiveness of Spain under contracts PID2019-107255GB and 2017-SGR-1414. Peer Reviewed Article signat per 30 autors/es: Ivan Lazic (1), Ferran Agullo (2), Susanna Ausso (3), Bruno Alves (4), Caroline Barelle (4), Josep Ll. Berral (2), Paschalis Bizopoulos (5), Oana Bunduc (6), Ioanna Chouvarda (7), Didier Dominguez (3), Dimitrios Filos (7), Alberto Gutierrez-Torre (2), Iman Hesso (8), Nikša Jakovljević (1), Reem Kayyali (8), Magdalena Kogut-Czarkowska (9), Alexandra Kosvyra (7), Antonios Lalas (5) , Maria Lavdaniti (10,11), Tatjana Loncar-Turukalo (1),Sara Martinez-Alabart (3), Nassos Michas (4,12), Shereen Nabhani-Gebara (8), Andreas Raptopoulos (6), Yiannis Roussakis (13), Evangelia Stalika (7,11), Chrysostomos Symvoulidis (6,14), Olga Tsave (7), Konstantinos Votis (5) Andreas Charalambous (15) / (1) Faculty of Technical Sciences, University of Novi Sad, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia; (2) Barcelona Supercomputing Center, 08034 Barcelona, Spain; (3) Fundació TIC Salut Social, Ministry of Health of Catalonia, 08005 Barcelona, Spain; (4) European Dynamics, 1466 Luxembourg, Luxembourg; (5) Centre for Research and Technology Hellas, 57001 Thessaloniki, Greece; (6) Telesto IoT Solutions, London N7 7PX, UK: (7) School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece; (8) Department of Pharmacy, Kingston University London, London KT1 2EE, UK; (9) Timelex BV/SRL, 1000 Brussels, Belgium; (10) Nursing Department, International Hellenic University, 57400 Thessaloniki, Greece; (11) Hellenic Cancer Society, 11521 Athens, Greece; (12) European Dynamics, 15124 Athens, Greece; (13) German Oncology Center, Department of Medical Physics, Limassol 4108, Cyprus; (14) Department of Digital Systems, University of Piraeus, 18534 Piraeus, Greece; (15) Department of Nursing, Cyprus University of Technology, Limassol 3036, Cyprus

BACKGROUND: In Spain, women invited to breast screening are not usually informed about potential harms of screening. The objective of the InforMa study is to assess the effect of receiving information about the benefits and harms of breast screening on informed choice and other decision-making outcomes, in women approaching the age of invitation to mammography screening. METHODS: Two-stage randomised controlled trial. In the first stage, 40 elementary territorial units of the public healthcare system were selected and randomised to intervention or control. In the second stage, women aged 49-50 years were randomly selected. The target sample size was 400 women. Women in the intervention arm received a decision aid (DA) with detailed information on the benefits and harms of screening. Women in the control arm received a standard leaflet that did not mention harms and recommended accepting the invitation to participate in the Breast Cancer Screening Program (BCSP). The primary outcome was informed choice, defined as adequate knowledge and intentions consistent with attitudes. Secondary outcomes included decisional conflict, worry about breast cancer, time perspective, opinions about the DA or the leaflet, and participation in the BCSP. RESULTS: In the intervention group, 23.2% of 203 women made an informed choice compared to only 0.5% of 197 women in the control group (p < 0.001). Attitudes and intentions were similar in both study groups with a high frequency of women intending to be screened, 82.8% vs 82.2% (p = 0.893). Decisional conflict was significantly lower in the intervention group. No differences were observed in confidence in the decision, anxiety, and participation in BCSP. CONCLUSIONS: Women in Spain lack knowledge on the benefits and harms of breast screening. Providing quantitative information on benefits and harms has produced a considerable increase in knowledge and informed choice, with a high acceptance of the informative materials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial identifier NCT03046004 at ClinicalTrials.gov registry. Registered on February 4 2017. Trial name: InforMa study. This study was supported by the research grant “Women participation in decisions and strategies on early detection of breast cancer” (PI14/00113) from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III and cofunded by Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) “Una manera de hacer Europa.” Anna Pons received a grant for PhD students from the Lleida Biomedical Research Institute (IRBLleida). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

A recent trend in digital mammography is computer-aided diagnosis systems, which are computerised tools designed to assist radiologists. Most of these systems are used for the automatic detection of abnormalities. However, recent studies have shown that their sensitivity is significantly decreased as the density of the breast increases. This dependence is method specific. In this paper we propose a new approach to the classification of mammographic images according to their breast parenchymal density. Our classification uses information extracted from segmentation results and is based on the underlying breast tissue texture. Classification performance was based on a large set of digitised mammograms. Evaluation involves different classifiers and uses a leave-one-out methodology. Results demonstrate the feasibility of estimating breast density using image processing and analysis techniques.

Background The decision to participate or not in breast cancer screening is complex due to the trade-off between the expected benefit of breast cancer mortality reduction and the major harm of overdiagnosis. It seems ethically necessary to inform women so that they can actively participate in decision-making and make an informed choice based on their values and preferences. The objective of this study is to assess the effects of receiving information about the benefits and harms of screening on decision-making, in women approaching the age of invitation to mammography screening. Methods A two-stage, randomized controlled trial (RCT). In the first stage, 40 Basic Health Areas (BHAs) will be selected and randomized to intervention or control. In the second stage, women within each BHA will be randomly selected (n = 400). Four breast cancer screening programs (BCSPs) of the Spanish public health system, three in Catalonia and one in the Canary Islands will participate in the study. Women in the intervention arm will receive a leaflet with detailed information on the benefits and harms of screening using mammography. Women in the control arm will receive a standard leaflet that does not mention harms and recommends accepting the invitation to participate in the biennial examinations of the BCSP. The primary outcome is informed choice, a dichotomous variable that combines knowledge, attitudes, and intentions. Secondary outcomes include decisional conflict; confidence in the decision made; anxiety about screening participation; worry about breast cancer; anticipated regret; time perspective; perceived importance of benefits/harms of screening; perceived risk of breast cancer; and leaflet acceptability. Primary and secondary outcomes are assessed 2–3 weeks after the intervention. Discussion This is the first RCT that assesses the effect of informing about the benefits and harms of breast cancer screening in Spain in women facing the decision to be screened using mammography. It aims to assess the impact of information on several decisional outcomes and to contribute to paving the road towards shared decision-making in breast cancer screening in our country. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov registry, ID: NCT03046004. Retrospectively registered on 4 February 2017. Trial name: InforMa study. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2161-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Women with false‐positive results are commonly referred back to routine screening. Questions remain regarding their long‐term outcome of breast cancer. We assessed the risk of screen‐detected breast cancer in women with false‐positive results. We conducted a joint analysis using individual level data from the population‐based screening programs in Copenhagen and Funen in Denmark, Norway, and Spain. Overall, 150,383 screened women from Denmark (1991–2008), 612,138 from Norway (1996–2010), and 1,172,572 from Spain (1990–2006) were included. Poisson regression was used to estimate the relative risk (RR) of screen‐detected cancer for women with false‐positive versus negative results. We analyzed information from 1,935,093 women 50–69 years who underwent 6,094,515 screening exams. During an average 5.8 years of follow‐up, 230,609 (11.9%) women received a false‐positive result and 27,849 (1.4%) were diagnosed with screen‐detected cancer. The adjusted RR of screen‐detected cancer after a false‐positive result was 2.01 (95% CI: 1.93–2.09). Women who tested false‐positive at first screen had a RR of 1.86 (95% CI: 1.77–1.96), whereas those who tested false‐positive at third screening had a RR of 2.42 (95% CI: 2.21–2.64). The RR of breast cancer at the screening test after the false‐positive result was 3.95 (95% CI: 3.71–4.21), whereas it decreased to 1.25 (95% CI: 1.17–1.34) three or more screens after the false‐positive result. Women with false‐positive results had a twofold risk of screen‐detected breast cancer compared to women with negative tests. The risk remained significantly higher three or more screens after the false‐positive result. The increased risk should be considered when discussing stratified screening strategies.

Treball de fi de grau en Sistemes Audiovisuals Tutor: Gemma Piella Fenoy This project investigates the feasibility of using the scattering transform for breast cancer detection from mammograms. The Scattering Transform is a recently introduced descriptor that follows the scheme of a neural network, whose filters are wavelets followed by a modulus operator. We built a classification scheme that involves a feature extraction and a classification stages. For the first stage, we have used the Scattering Transform for extracting discriminant features robust to small deformations in the image. Moreover, we have also used another descriptor as a reference, the Scale-Invariant Feature Transform, widely used in classification problem. For the second stage, we have trained two models, a generative (based on affine spaces) and a discriminative (based on support vector machines). We tested our pattern recognition system on 1590 mammograms (964 normal cases,/n425 cancer cases and 201 benign cases), achieving more than 90% of accuracy. These results confirm that the Scattering Transform is a powerful tool to describe mammograms. Aquest projecte investiga la factibilitat d’utilitzar la transformada scattering en /nproblemes de detecció de càncer de mama mitjançant l’ús de mamografies. /nLa transformada scattering és un nou descriptor/nque segueix l’esquema d’una xarxa /nneuronal on els filtres són /nwavelets/nseguides d’un operador de mòdul. /nHem construït un esquema de classificació format per una etapa d’extracció de /ncaracterístiques i una altra de classificació. Per la primera etapa, hem utilitzat la /ntransformada scattering per extreure característiques discriminants robustes a petites /ndeformacions de la imatge. A més, també hem utilitzat un altre descriptor comú en /nproblemes de classificació, el /nScale-Invariant Feature Transform, que ens ha servit com /na referència. Per la segona etapa, hem entrenat dos models,/nun generatiu (basat en espais /na/nfins) i un altre /ndiscriminatiu (/nbasat en màquines de suport /nvectorial). /nHem testejat el nostre sistema de reconeixement de patrons amb 1590 mamografies /n(694 casos normals, 425 casos cancerígens i 201 casos benignes) i hem obtingut /nmés /nd’un 90% d’encert. /nAquests resultats confirmen/nque /nla transformada scattering és una /nbona eina per descriure mamografies.

The massive growth in applications of radiological imaging and image-guided treatments has met a worldwide shortage of trained radiologists. Therefore, several computer-based radiology training environments, which combine traditional learning opportunities with advanced e-learning platforms, have recently been developed with the goal of supporting the acquisition of radiological expertise. However, the quantity and quality of clinical experience arises as the main issue to ensure the success for such learning environments when training radiologists to interpret medical images. In this sense, MamoDB is a research web-based tool which has been customized in order to incorporate learning capabilities for training and guidance of newly employed or resident radiologists. MamoDB allows panels of experts to collaborate at different hospitals and research centres by means of integrating a Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) to store the Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) files as well as a database with the eXtended Markup Language (XML) files containing the experts’ annotations for each clinical case

OBJECTIVE: To compare accuracy measures for mammographic screening in Norway, Spain, and the US. METHODS: Information from women aged 50-69 years who underwent mammographic screening 1996-2009 in the US (898,418 women), Norway (527,464), and Spain (517,317) was included. Screen-detected cancer, interval cancer, and the false-positive rates, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) for recalls (PPV-1), PPV for biopsies (PPV-2), 1/PPV-1 and 1/PPV-2 were computed for each country. Analyses were stratified by age, screening history, time since last screening, calendar year, and mammography modality. RESULTS: The rate of screen-detected cancers was 4.5, 5.5, and 4.0 per 1000 screening exams in the US, Norway, and Spain respectively. The highest sensitivity and lowest specificity were reported in the US (83.1 % and 91.3 %, respectively), followed by Spain (79.0 % and 96.2 %) and Norway (75.5 % and 97.1 %). In Norway, Spain and the US, PPV-1 was 16.4 %, 9.8 %, and 4.9 %, and PPV-2 was 39.4 %, 38.9 %, and 25.9 %, respectively. The number of women needed to recall to detect one cancer was 20.3, 6.1, and 10.2 in the US, Norway, and Spain, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Differences were found across countries, suggesting that opportunistic screening may translate into higher sensitivity at the cost of lower specificity and PPV. KEY POINTS: • Positive predictive value is higher in population-based screening programmes in Spain and Norway. • Opportunistic mammography screening in the US has lower positive predictive value. • Screening settings in the US translate into higher sensitivity and lower specificity. • The clinical burden may be higher for women screened opportunistically. This work was partially supported by grants from Instituto de Salud Carlos III FEDER (PI11/01296), BELE Study, the National Institutes of Health (T32CA09168), and the National Cancer Institute-funded Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (HHSN261201100031C). The collection of US cancer and vital status data used in this study was supported in part by several state public health departments and cancer registries