Malmö Breast ImaginG Database: Objectives and Development

Overview

Journal J Med Imaging (Bellingham)

Specialty Radiology

Date 2023 Feb 13

PMID 36779038

Authors

Victor Dahlblom

Magnus Dustler

Anetta Bolejko

Predrag R Bakic

Henrik Granberg

Kristin Johnson

Daniel Fornvik

Kristina Lang

Anders Tingberg

Sophia Zackrisson

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: We describe the design and implementation of the Malmö Breast ImaginG (M-BIG) database, which will support research projects investigating various aspects of current and future breast cancer screening programs. Specifically, M-BIG will provide clinical data to:1.investigate the effect of breast cancer screening on breast cancer prognosis and mortality;2.develop and validate the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning in breast image interpretation; and3.develop and validate image-based radiological breast cancer risk profiles.

Approach: The M-BIG database is intended to include a wide range of digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) examinations performed on women at the Mammography Clinic in Malmö, Sweden, from the introduction of DM in 2004 through 2020. Subjects may be included multiple times and for diverse reasons. The image data are linked to extensive clinical, diagnostic, and demographic data from several registries.

Results: To date, the database contains a total of 451,054 examinations from 104,791 women. During the inclusion period, 95,258 unique women were screened. A total of 19,968 examinations were performed using DBT, whereas the rest used DM.

Conclusions: We describe the design and implementation of the M-BIG database as a representative and accessible medical image database linked to various types of medical data. Work is ongoing to add features and curate the existing data.

Citing Articles

Our journey toward implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Project.

Tingberg A, Dahlblom V, Dustler M, Fornvik D, Johnson K, Timberg P J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2024; 12(Suppl 1):S13006.

PMID: 39464415 PMC: 11501043. DOI: 10.1117/1.JMI.12.S1.S13006.

References

Posso M, Puig T, Carles M, Rue M, Canelo-Aybar C, Bonfill X . Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of double reading in digital mammography screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol. 2017; 96:40-49. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.09.013. View

Khoury M, Gwinn M, Glasgow R, Kramer B . A population approach to precision medicine. Am J Prev Med. 2012; 42(6):639-45. PMC: 3629731. DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.02.012. View

Boyd N, Byng J, Jong R, Fishell E, Little L, Miller A . Quantitative classification of mammographic densities and breast cancer risk: results from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995; 87(9):670-5. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/87.9.670. View

Gastounioti A, Conant E, Kontos D . Beyond breast density: a review on the advancing role of parenchymal texture analysis in breast cancer risk assessment. Breast Cancer Res. 2016; 18(1):91. PMC: 5029019. DOI: 10.1186/s13058-016-0755-8. View

Eriksson M, Czene K, Pawitan Y, Leifland K, Darabi H, Hall P . A clinical model for identifying the short-term risk of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2017; 19(1):29. PMC: 5348894. DOI: 10.1186/s13058-017-0820-y. View

Lehman C, Wellman R, Buist D, Kerlikowske K, Tosteson A, Miglioretti D . Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital Screening Mammography With and Without Computer-Aided Detection. JAMA Intern Med. 2015; 175(11):1828-37. PMC: 4836172. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.5231. View

Dembrower K, Lindholm P, Strand F . A Multi-million Mammography Image Dataset and Population-Based Screening Cohort for the Training and Evaluation of Deep Neural Networks-the Cohort of Screen-Aged Women (CSAW). J Digit Imaging. 2019; 33(2):408-413. PMC: 7165146. DOI: 10.1007/s10278-019-00278-0. View

Zackrisson S, Lang K, Rosso A, Johnson K, Dustler M, Fornvik D . One-view breast tomosynthesis versus two-view mammography in the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (MBTST): a prospective, population-based, diagnostic accuracy study. Lancet Oncol. 2018; 19(11):1493-1503. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30521-7. View

Johnson K, Lang K, Ikeda D, Akesson A, Andersson I, Zackrisson S . Interval Breast Cancer Rates and Tumor Characteristics in the Prospective Population-based Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial. Radiology. 2021; 299(3):559-567. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2021204106. View

10.

Gilbert F, Tucker L, Young K . Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): a review of the evidence for use as a screening tool. Clin Radiol. 2015; 71(2):141-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2015.11.008. View

11.

Saal L, Vallon-Christersson J, Hakkinen J, Hegardt C, Grabau D, Winter C . The Sweden Cancerome Analysis Network - Breast (SCAN-B) Initiative: a large-scale multicenter infrastructure towards implementation of breast cancer genomic analyses in the clinical routine. Genome Med. 2015; 7(1):20. PMC: 4341872. DOI: 10.1186/s13073-015-0131-9. View

12.

Maxwell A, Ridley N, Rubin G, Wallis M, Gilbert F, Michell M . The Royal College of Radiologists Breast Group breast imaging classification. Clin Radiol. 2009; 64(6):624-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2009.01.010. View

13.

Fornvik D, Lang K, Andersson I, Dustler M, Borgquist S, Timberg P . ESTIMATES OF BREAST CANCER GROWTH RATE FROM MAMMOGRAMS AND ITS RELATION TO TUMOUR CHARACTERISTICS. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2015; 169(1-4):151-7. DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncv417. View

14.

Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M, Anesi V, Burlon S, Cauli E . Application of breast tomosynthesis in screening: incremental effect on mammography acquisition and reading time. Br J Radiol. 2012; 85(1020):e1174-8. PMC: 3611720. DOI: 10.1259/bjr/19385909. View

15.

Jacobsen K, OMeara E, Key D, Buist D, Kerlikowske K, Vejborg I . Comparing sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography in the United States and Denmark. Int J Cancer. 2015; 137(9):2198-207. PMC: 4537675. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.29593. View

16.

Domingo L, Hofvind S, Hubbard R, Roman M, Benkeser D, Sala M . Cross-national comparison of screening mammography accuracy measures in U.S., Norway, and Spain. Eur Radiol. 2015; 26(8):2520-8. PMC: 4927608. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-015-4074-8. View

17.

Winter C, Nilsson M, Olsson E, George A, Chen Y, Kvist A . Targeted sequencing of BRCA1 and BRCA2 across a large unselected breast cancer cohort suggests that one-third of mutations are somatic. Ann Oncol. 2016; 27(8):1532-8. PMC: 4959927. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdw209. View

18.

. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet. 2012; 380(9855):1778-86. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61611-0. View

19.

Houssami N, Kirkpatrick-Jones G, Noguchi N, Lee C . Artificial Intelligence (AI) for the early detection of breast cancer: a scoping review to assess AI's potential in breast screening practice. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2019; 16(5):351-362. DOI: 10.1080/17434440.2019.1610387. View