February 2019, VOLUME 212
NUMBER 2

Current  |  Available

Recommend & Share

February 2019, Volume 212, Number 2

FOCUS ON: Women's Imaging

Original Research

Artificial Intelligence for Breast MRI in 2008–2018: A Systematic Mapping Review

Marina Codari1, Simone Schiaffino1, Francesco Sardanelli1,2 and Rubina Manuela Trimboli2
ShareAudio Available | Share Share
+ Affiliations:
1Unit of Radiology, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico Policlinico San Donato, Via Morandi 30, San Donato Milanese, 20097 Milan, Italy.

2Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.

Citation: American Journal of Roentgenology. 2019;212: 280-292. 10.2214/AJR.18.20389

ABSTRACT :

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to review literature from the past decade on applications of artificial intelligence (AI) to breast MRI.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. In June 2018, a systematic search of the literature was performed to identify articles on the use of AI in breast MRI. For each article identified, the surname of the first author, year of publication, journal of publication, Web of Science Core Collection journal category, country of affiliation of the first author, study design, dataset, study aim(s), AI methods used, and, when available, diagnostic performance were recorded.

RESULTS. Sixty-seven studies, 58 (87%) of which had a retrospective design, were analyzed. When journal categories were considered, 36% of articles were identified as being included in the radiology and imaging journal category. Contrast-enhanced sequences were used for most AI applications (n = 50; 75%) and, on occasion, were combined with other MRI sequences (n = 8; 12%). Four main clinical aims were addressed: breast lesion classification (n = 36; 54%), image processing (n = 14; 21%), prognostic imaging (n = 9; 13%), and response to neoadjuvant therapy (n = 8; 12%). Artificial neural networks, support vector machines, and clustering were the most frequently used algorithms, accounting for 66%. The performance achieved and the most frequently used techniques were then analyzed according to specific clinical aims. Supervised learning algorithms were primarily used for lesion characterization, with the AUC value from ROC analysis ranging from 0.74 to 0.98 (median, 0.87) and with that from prognostic imaging ranging from 0.62 to 0.88 (median, 0.80), whereas unsupervised learning was mainly used for image processing purposes.

CONCLUSION. Interest in the application of advanced AI methods to breast MRI is growing worldwide. Although this growth is encouraging, the current performance of AI applications in breast MRI means that such applications are still far from being incorporated into clinical practice.

Keywords: artificial intelligence, breast diseases, machine learning, MRI

Supported in part by Ricerca Corrente funding from the Italian Ministry of Health to Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico Policlinico San Donato.

References
Previous section
1. Tredinnick L. Artificial intelligence and professional roles. Business Information Review 2017; 34:37–41 [Google Scholar]
2. Pesapane F, Volonté C, Codari M, Sardanelli F. Artificial intelligence as a medical device in radiology: ethical and regulatory issues in Europe and the United States. Insights Imaging 2018; 9:745–753 [Google Scholar]
3. Panetta K. Top trends in the Gartner hype cycle for emerging technologies, 2017. Gartner website. www.gartner.com/smarterwithgartner/top-trends-in-the-gartner-hype-cycle-for-emerging-technologies-2017. Published 2017. Accessed July 7, 2018 [Google Scholar]
4. Russell S, Bohannon J. Artificial intelligence: fears of an AI pioneer. Science 2015; 349:252 [Google Scholar]
5. Chartrand G, Cheng PM, Vorontsov E, et al. Deep learning: a primer for radiologists. RadioGraphics 2017; 37:2113–2131 [Google Scholar]
6. Erickson BJ, Korfiati P, Zeynettin A, Kline TL. Machine learning for medical imaging. RadioGraphics 2017; 37:505–515 [Google Scholar]
7. Samuel AL. Some studies in machine learning using the game of checkers. IBM Journal of Research and Development 1959; 3:210–229 [Google Scholar]
8. Pesapane F, Codari M, Sardanelli F. Artificial intelligence in medical imaging: threat or opportunity? Radiologists again on the forefront of innovation in medicine. Eur Radiol Exp 2018 2018; 2:35 [Google Scholar]
9. Senders JT, Arnaout O, Karhade AV, et al. Natural and artificial intelligence in neurosurgery: a systematic review. Neurosurgery 2018; 132: 181–192 [Google Scholar]
10. Fusco R, Sansone M, Filice S, et al. Pattern recognition approaches for breast cancer DCE-MRI classification: a systematic review. J Med Biol Eng 2016; 36:449–459 [Google Scholar]
11. Deo RC. Machine learning in medicine. Circulation 2015; 132:1920–1930 [Google Scholar]
12. Jianliang M, Haikun S, Ling B. The application on intrusion detection based on k-means cluster algorithm. In: IFITA ‘09 Proceedings of the 2009 International Forum on Information Technology and Applications. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, 2009:150–152 [Google Scholar]
13. Patrick EA, Moskowitz M, Mansukhani VT, Gruenstein EI. Expert learning system network for diagnosis of breast calcifications. Invest Radiol 1991; 26:534–539 [Google Scholar]
14. Wu YC, Freedman MT, Hasegawa A, Zuurbier RA, Lo SC, Mun SK. Classification of microcalcifications in radiographs of pathologic specimens for the diagnosis of breast cancer. Acad Radiol 1995; 2:199–204 [Google Scholar]
15. Lin JS, Hasegawa A, Freedman MT, Mun SK. Differentiation between nodules and end-on vessels using a convolution neural network architecture. J Digit Imaging 1995; 8:132–141 [Google Scholar]
16. Heywang SH, Hahn D, Schmidt H, et al. MR imaging of the breast using gadolinium-DTPA. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1986; 10:199–204 [Google Scholar]
17. Sardanelli F, Boetes C, Borisch B, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer 2010; 46:1296–1316 [Google Scholar]
18. Houssami N, Hayes DF. Review of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in breast cancer: should MRI be performed on all women with newly diagnosed, early stage breast cancer? CA Cancer J Clin 2009; 59:290–302 [Google Scholar]
19. Pinker K, Moy L, Sutton EJ, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging with apparent diffusion coefficient mapping for breast cancer detection as a stand-alone parameter: comparison with dynamic contrast-enhanced and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol 2018; 59: 587–595 [Google Scholar]
20. Valdora F, Houssami N, Rossi F, Calabrese M, Tagliafico AS. Rapid review: radiomics and breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2018; 169:217–229 [Google Scholar]
21. Janaki Sathya D, Geetha K. Hybrid ANN optimized artificial fish swarm algorithm based classifier for classification of suspicious lesions in breast DCE-MRI. Pol J Med Phys Eng 2017; 23:81–88 [Google Scholar]
22. Dietzel M, Baltzer PAT, Dietzel A, et al. Artificial neural networks for differential diagnosis of breast lesions in MR-mammography: a systematic approach addressing the influence of network architecture on diagnostic performance using a large clinical database. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81:1508–1513 [Google Scholar]
23. Nie K, Chen JH, Yu HJ, Chu Y, Nalcioglu O, Su MY. Quantitative analysis of lesion morphology and texture features for diagnostic prediction in breast MRI. Acad Radiol 2008; 15:1513–1525 [Google Scholar]
24. McLaren CE, Chen W-P, Nie K, Su M-Y. Prediction of malignant breast lesions from MRI features. Acad Radiol 2009; 16:842–851 [Google Scholar]
25. Newell D, Nie K, Chen J-H, et al. Selection of diagnostic features on breast MRI to differentiate between malignant and benign lesions using computer-aided diagnosis: differences in lesions presenting as mass and non-mass-like enhancement. Eur Radiol 2010; 20:771–781 [Google Scholar]
26. Kale MC, Fleig JD, İmal N. Assessment of feasibility to use computer aided texture analysis based tool for parametric images of suspicious lesions in DCE-MR mammography. Comput Math Methods Med 2013; 2013:872676 [Google Scholar]
27. Kale MC, Clymer BD, Koch RM, et al. Multi-spectral co-occurrence with three random variables in dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of breast cancer. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2008; 27:1425–1431 [Google Scholar]
28. Dietzel M, Baltzer PAT, Dietzel A, et al. Application of artificial neural networks for the prediction of lymph node metastases to the ipsilateral axilla: initial experience in 194 patients using magnetic resonance mammography. Acta Radiol 2010; 51:851–858 [Google Scholar]
29. Aghaei F, Tan M, Hollingsworth AB, Qian W, Liu H, Zheng B. Computer-aided breast MR image feature analysis for prediction of tumor response to chemotherapy. Med Phys 2015; 42:6520–6528 [Google Scholar]
30. Aghaei F, Tan M, Hollingsworth AB, Zheng B. Applying a new quantitative global breast MRI feature analysis scheme to assess tumor response to chemotherapy. J Magn Reson Imaging 2016; 44:1099–1106 [Google Scholar]
31. Yuan Y, Giger ML, Li H, Bhooshan N, Sennett CA. Classification of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance breast lesions by support vector machines. J Med Biol Eng 2012; 32:42–50 [Google Scholar]
32. Bhooshan N, Giger M, Lan L, et al. Combined use of T2-weighted MRI and T1-weighted dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in the automated analysis of breast lesions. Magn Reson Med 2011; 66:555–564 [Google Scholar]
33. Bhooshan N, Giger M, Medved M, et al. Potential of computer-aided diagnosis of high spectral and spatial resolution (HiSS) MRI in the classification of breast lesions. J Magn Reson Imaging 2014; 39:59–67 [Google Scholar]
34. Yuan Y, Giger ML, Li H, Bhooshan N, Sennett CA. Multimodality computer-aided breast cancer diagnosis with FFDM and DCE-MRI. Acad Radiol 2010; 17:1158–1167 [Google Scholar]
35. Bhooshan N, Giger M, Edwards D, et al. Computerized three-class classification of MRI-based prognostic markers for breast cancer. Phys Med Biol 2011; 56:5995–6008 [Google Scholar]
36. Antropova N, Abe H, Giger ML. Use of clinical MRI maximum intensity projections for improved breast lesion classification with deep convolutional neural networks. J Med Imaging (Bellingham) 2018; 5:014503 [Google Scholar]
37. Antropova N, Huynh BQ, Giger ML. A deep feature fusion methodology for breast cancer diagnosis demonstrated on three imaging modality datasets. Med Phys 2017; 44:5162–5171 [Google Scholar]
38. Dalmış MU, Litjens G, Holland K, et al. Using deep learning to segment breast and fibroglandular tissue in MRI volumes. Med Phys 2017; 44:533–546 [Google Scholar]
39. Dalmış MU, Vreemann S, Kooi T, Mann RM, Karssemeijer N, Gubern-Mérida A. Fully automated detection of breast cancer in screening MRI using convolutional neural networks. J Med Imaging (Bellingham) 2018; 5:014502 [Google Scholar]
40. Ertas G, Doran SJ, Leach MO. A computerized volumetric segmentation method applicable to multi-centre MRI data to support computer-aided breast tissue analysis, density assessment and lesion localization. Med Biol Eng Comput 2017; 55:57–68 [Google Scholar]
41. Schacht DV, Drukker K, Pak I, Abe H, Giger ML. Using quantitative image analysis to classify axillary lymph nodes on breast MRI: a new application for the Z 0011 era. Eur J Radiol 2015; 84:392–397 [Google Scholar]
42. Huang Y-H, Chang Y-C, Huang C-S, Chen J-H, Chang R-F. Computerized breast mass detection using multi-scale Hessian-based analysis for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. J Digit Imaging 2014; 27:649–660 [Google Scholar]
43. Chang YC, Huang YH, Huang CS, Chang PK, Chen JH, Chang RF. Classification of breast mass lesions using model-based analysis of the characteristic kinetic curve derived from fuzzy c-means clustering. Magn Reson Imaging 2012; 30:312–322 [Google Scholar]
44. Yin XX, Hadjiloucas S, Chen JH, Zhang Y, Wu JL, Su MY. Tensor based multichannel reconstruction for breast tumours identification from DCE-MRIs. PLoS One 2017; 12:e0172111 [Google Scholar]
45. Pang Y, Li L, Hu W, Peng Y, Liu L, Shao Y. Computerized segmentation and characterization of breast lesions in dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images using fuzzy c-means clustering and snake algorithm. Comput Math Methods Med 2012; 2012:634907 [Google Scholar]
46. Doran SJ, Hipwell JH, Denholm R, et al. Breast MRI segmentation for density estimation: do different methods give the same results and how much do differences matter? Med Phys 2017; 44:4573–4592 [Google Scholar]
47. Clendenen TV, Zeleniuch-Jacquotte A, Moy L, Pike MC, Rusinek H, Kim S. Comparison of 3-point Dixon imaging and fuzzy c-means clustering methods for breast density measurement. J Magn Reson Imaging 2013; 38:474–481 [Google Scholar]
48. Whitney HM, Taylor NS, Drukker K, et al. Additive benefit of radiomics over size alone in the distinction between benign lesions and luminal A cancers on a large clinical breast MRI dataset. Acad Radiol 2018 May 10 [Epub ahead of print] [Google Scholar]
49. Fan M, Li H, Wang S, Zheng B, Zhang J, Li L. Radiomic analysis reveals DCE-MRI features for prediction of molecular subtypes of breast cancer. PLoS One 2017; 12:e0171683 [Google Scholar]
50. Saha A, Harowicz MR, Wang W, Mazurowski MA. A study of association of oncotype DX recurrence score with DCE-MRI characteristics using multivariate machine learning models. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2018; 144:799–807 [Google Scholar]
51. Cavedon C, Meliadò G, Rossi L, et al. High-field MR spectroscopy in the multiparametric MRI evaluation of breast lesions. Phys Med 2016; 32:1707–1711 [Google Scholar]
52. Chen F, Chen P, Hamid Muhammed H, Zhang J. Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion for identification of breast malignant and benign tumors using chemometrics. Biomed Res Int 2017; 2017:3845409 [Google Scholar]
53. Pang Z, Zhu D, Chen D, Li L, Shao Y. A computer-aided diagnosis system for dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images based on level set segmentation and ReliefF feature selection. Comput Math Methods Med 2015; 2015:450531 [Google Scholar]
54. Yang Q, Li L, Zhang J, Shao G, Zheng B. A new quantitative image analysis method for improving breast cancer diagnosis using DCE-MRI examinations. Med Phys 2015; 42:103–109 [Google Scholar]
55. Levman J, Warner E, Causer P, Martel A. Semi-automatic region-of-interest segmentation based computer-aided diagnosis of mass lesions from dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging based breast cancer screening. J Digit Imaging 2014; 27:670–678 [Google Scholar]
56. Nagarajan MB. Classification of small lesions in breast MRI: evaluating the role of dynamically extracted texture features through feature selection. J Med Biol Eng 2013; 33:59 [Google Scholar]
57. Soares F, Janela F, Pereira M, Seabra J, Freire MM. 3D lacunarity in multifractal analysis of breast tumor lesions in dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. IEEE Trans Image Process 2013; 22:4422–4435 [Google Scholar]
58. Rakoczy M, McGaughey D, Korenberg MJ, Levman J, Martel AL. Feature selection in computer-aided breast cancer diagnosis via dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance images. J Digit Imaging 2013; 26:198–208 [Google Scholar]
59. Lee SH, Kim JH, Cho N, et al. Multilevel analysis of spatiotemporal association features for differentiation of tumor enhancement patterns in breast DCE-MRI. Med Phys 2010; 37:3940–3956 [Google Scholar]
60. Levman J, Leung T, Causer P, Plewes D, Martel AL. Classification of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance breast lesions by support vector machines. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2008; 27:688–696 [Google Scholar]
61. Vidić I, Egnell L, Jerome NP, et al. Support vector machine for breast cancer classification using diffusion-weighted MRI histogram features: preliminary study. J Magn Reson Imaging 2018; 47:1205–1216 [Google Scholar]
62. Levman JED, Warner E, Causer P, Martel AL. A vector machine formulation with application to the computer-aided diagnosis of breast cancer from DCE-MRI screening examinations. J Digit Imaging 2014; 27:145–151 [Google Scholar]
63. Agner SC, Soman S, Libfeld E, et al. Textural kinetics: a novel dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI feature for breast lesion classification. J Digit Imaging 2011; 24:446–463 [Google Scholar]
64. Cai H, Peng Y, Ou C, Chen M, Li L. Diagnosis of breast masses from dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MR: a machine learning approach. PLoS One 2014; 9:e87387 [Google Scholar]
65. Bickelhaupt S, Paech D, Kickingereder P, et al. Prediction of malignancy by a radiomic signature from contrast agent-free diffusion MRI in suspicious breast lesions found on screening mammography. J Magn Reson Imaging 2017; 46:604–616 [Google Scholar]
66. Wang T-C, Huang Y-H, Huang C-S, et al. Computer-aided diagnosis of breast DCE-MRI using pharmacokinetic model and 3-D morphology analysis. Magn Reson Imaging 2014; 32:197–205 [Google Scholar]
67. Dalmış MU, Gubern-Mérida A, Vreemann S, Karssemeijer N, Mann R, Platel B. A computer-aided diagnosis system for breast DCE-MRI at high spatiotemporal resolution. Med Phys 2016; 43:84 [Google Scholar]
68. Milenković J, Dalmış MU, Žgajnar J, Platel B. Textural analysis of early-phase spatiotemporal changes in contrast enhancement of breast lesions imaged with an ultrafast DCE-MRI protocol. Med Phys 2017; 44:4652–4664 [Google Scholar]
69. Cai H, Liu L, Peng Y, Wu Y, Li L. Diagnostic assessment by dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance in differentiation of breast lesions under different imaging protocols. BMC Cancer 2014; 14:366 [Google Scholar]
70. Sun L, He J, Yin X, et al. An image segmentation framework for extracting tumors from breast magnetic resonance images. J Innov Opt Heal Sci 2018; 11:1850014 [Google Scholar]
71. Gubern-Mérida A, Kallenberg M, Mann RM, Martí R, Karssemeijer N. Breast segmentation and density estimation in breast MRI: a fully automatic framework. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform 2015; 19:349–357 [Google Scholar]
72. Gubern-Mérida A, Martí R, Melendez J, et al. Automated localization of breast cancer in DCE-MRI. Med Image Anal 2015; 20:265–274 [Google Scholar]
73. Ribes S, Didierlaurent D, Decoster N, et al. Automatic segmentation of breast MR images through a Markov random field statistical model. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2014; 33:1986–1996 [Google Scholar]
74. Liang C, Cheng Z, Huang Y, et al. An MRI-based radiomics classifier for preoperative prediction of Ki-67 status in breast cancer. Acad Radiol 2018; 33: 1111–1117 [Google Scholar]
75. Li H, Zhu Y, Burnside E, et al. MR imaging radiomics signatures for predicting the risk of breast cancer recurrence as given by research versions of MammaPrint, Oncotype DX, and PAM50 gene as-says. Radiology 2016; 281:382–391 [Google Scholar]
76. Sutton EJ, Dashevsky BZ, Oh JH, et al. Breast cancer molecular subtype classifier that incorporates MRI features. J Magn Reson Imaging 2016; 44:122–129 [Google Scholar]
77. Fan M, Wu G, Cheng H, Zhang J, Shao G, Li L. Radiomic analysis of DCE-MRI for prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients. Eur J Radiol 2017; 94:140–147 [Google Scholar]
78. Mani S, Chen Y, Li X, et al. Machine learning for predicting the response of breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2013; 20:688–695 [Google Scholar]
79. Banerjee I, Malladi S, Lee D, Depeursinge A, Telli M, Lipson J. Assessing treatment response in triple-negative breast cancer from quantitative image analysis in perfusion magnetic resonance imaging. J Med Imaging (Bellingham) 2018; 5:011008 [Google Scholar]
80. Braman NM, Etesami M, Prasanna P, et al. Intratumoral and peritumoral radiomics for the pretreatment prediction of pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy based on breast DCE-MRI. Breast Cancer Res 2017; 19:57 [Google Scholar]
81. Michoux N, Van den Broeck S, Lacoste L, et al. Texture analysis on MR images helps predicting non-response to NAC in breast cancer. BMC Cancer 2015; 15:574 [Google Scholar]
82. Giannini V, Mazzetti S, Marmo A, Montemurro F, Regge D, Martincich L. A computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) scheme for pretreatment prediction of pathological response to neoadjuvant therapy using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI texture features. Br J Radiol 2017; 90:20170269 [Google Scholar]
83. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009; 45:228–247 [Google Scholar]
84. Craft L. Understand the value of AI for health-care delivery organizations. Gartner website. www.gartner.com/doc/3869974/understand-value-ai-healthcare-delivery. Published 2018. Accessed July 11, 2018 [Google Scholar]
85. Ikeda DM, Hylton NM, Kuhl CK, et al. BI-RADS: magnetic resonance imaging, 1st ed. In: D'Orsi CJ, Mendelson EB, Ikeda DM, et al. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: ACR BI-RADS—breast imaging data. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2003 [Google Scholar]
86. Clauser P, Mann R, Athanasiou A, et al. A survey by the European Society of Breast Imaging on the utilisation of breast MRI in clinical practice. Eur Radiol 2018; 28:1909–1918 [Google Scholar]
87. Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin 2007; 57:75–89 [Google Scholar]
88. Lee J, Tanaka E, Eby PR, et al. Preoperative breast MRI: surgeons' patient selection patterns and potential bias in outcomes analyses. AJR 2017; 208:923–932 [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
89. Kuhl C, Weigel S, Schrading S, et al. Prospective multicenter cohort study to refine management recommendations for women at elevated familial risk of breast cancer: the EVA trial. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28:1450–1457 [Google Scholar]
90. Sardanelli F, Podo F, Santoro F, et al. Multicenter surveillance of women at high genetic breast cancer risk using mammography, ultrasonography, and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (the high breast cancer risk Italian 1 study). Invest Radiol 2011; 46:94–105 [Google Scholar]
91. Marinovich ML, Sardanelli F, Ciatto S, et al. Early prediction of pathologic response to neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer: systematic review of the accuracy of MRI. Breast 2012; 21:669–677 [Google Scholar]
92. Vicini E, Invento A, Cuoghi M, et al. Neoadjuvant systemic treatment for breast cancer in Italy: The Italian Society of Surgical Oncology (SICO) Breast Oncoteam survey. Eur J Surg Oncol 2018; 44:1157–1163 [Google Scholar]
93. Baltzer P, Zoubi R, Burmeister HP, et al. Computer assisted analysis of MR-mammography reveals association between contrast enhancement and occurrence of distant metastasis. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2012; 11:553–560 [Google Scholar]
94. Kim JY, Kim SH, Kim YJ, et al. Enhancement parameters on dynamic contrast enhanced breast MRI: do they correlate with prognostic factors and subtypes of breast cancers? Magn Reson Imaging 2015; 33:72–80 [Google Scholar]
95. Zhang L, Tang M, Min Z, Lu J, Lei X, Zhang X. Accuracy of combined dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging for breast cancer detection: a meta-analysis. Acta Radiol 2016; 57:651–660 [Google Scholar]
96. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J 2009; 26:91–108 [Google Scholar]
97. Wang Y, Morrell G, Heibrun ME, Payne A, Parker DL. 3D multi-parametric breast MRI segmentation using hierarchical support vector machine with coil sensitivity correction. Acad Radiol 2013; 20:137–147 [Google Scholar]
98. Lu W, Li Z, Chu J. A novel computer-aided diagnosis system for breast MRI based on feature selection and ensemble learning. Comput Biol Med 2017; 83:157–165 [Google Scholar]
99. Gallego-Ortiz C, Martel AL. Improving the accuracy of computer-aided diagnosis for breast MR imaging by differentiating between mass and nonmass lesions. Radiology 2016; 278:679–688 [Google Scholar]
100. Milenković J, Hertl K, Košir A, Žibert J, Tasič JF. Characterization of spatiotemporal changes for the classification of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic-resonance breast lesions. Artif Intell Med 2013; 58:101–114 [Google Scholar]
101. Nagarajan MB, Huber MB, Schlossbauer T, Leinsinger G, Krol A, Wismüller A. Classification of small lesions on dynamic breast MRI: integrating dimension reduction and out-of-sample extension into CADx methodology. Artif Intell Med 2014; 60:65–77 [Google Scholar]
Address correspondence to F. Sardanelli ().

Recommended Articles

Artificial Intelligence for Breast MRI in 2008–2018: A Systematic Mapping Review

No Access
Shadi Aminololama-Shakeri, Javier E. López
American Journal of Roentgenology. 2019;212:308-310. 10.2214/AJR.18.20509
Abstract | Full Text | PDF (558 KB) | PDF Plus (572 KB) 
No Access
Marcia C. Javitt
American Journal of Roentgenology. 2019;212:248-249. 10.2214/AJR.18.20175
Citation | Full Text | PDF (560 KB) | PDF Plus (571 KB) 
No Access
Hiram Shaish, Simukayi Mutasa, Jasnit Makkar, Peter Chang, Lawrence Schwartz, Firas Ahmed
American Journal of Roentgenology. 2019;212:238-244. 10.2214/AJR.18.20094
Abstract | Full Text | PDF (808 KB) | PDF Plus (846 KB) | Supplemental Material 
No Access
Yoshiharu Ohno, Masao Yui, Kota Aoyagi, Yuji Kishida, Shinichiro Seki, Hisanobu Koyama, Takeshi Yoshikawa
American Journal of Roentgenology. 2019;212:311-319. 10.2214/AJR.18.20111
Abstract | Full Text | PDF (914 KB) | PDF Plus (825 KB) | Supplemental Material 
No Access
Alejandro Garces-Descovich, Trevor C. Morrison, Kevin Beker, Adrian Jaramillo-Cardoso, A. James Moser, Koenraad J. Mortele
American Journal of Roentgenology. 2019;212:323-331. 10.2214/AJR.18.20017
Abstract | Full Text | PDF (1024 KB) | PDF Plus (923 KB) 
No Access
Srini Tridandapani, Pamela Bhatti, Carson Wick
American Journal of Roentgenology. 2019;212:320-322. 10.2214/AJR.18.20452
Abstract | Full Text | PDF (531 KB) | PDF Plus (551 KB)