Skip to main content
. 2023 Jul 24;25:87. doi: 10.1186/s13058-023-01687-4

Table 1.

Summary of studies included in this review

Study Source of data (where data were obtained) # of patients Benign lesions Malignant lesions Image type DL architecture Box or contour Ground truth Cross validation Heatmap AUC Accu Sens Spec
Adachi [13] Tokyo Medical and Dental University (Japan) 72 20 52 MIP, DCE RetinaNet Bounding box Rad per path; path, > 1y F/U Hold-out method No 0.93 Not reported 0.93 0.83
Antropova [24] University of Chicago 690 212 478 MIP DCE; DCE subtraction ConvNetVGGN Manual ROI with bounding box Rad per path; biopsy proven Fivefold No

0.88,

0.80,

0.83

Not reported Not reported Not reported
Ayatollahi [22] Radbound University Medical Center (the Netherlands) 462 207 365 DCE RetinaNet Bounding box Path, 2y F/U Tenfold No 0.90 Not reported 0.95 Not reported
Feng [24] Tangdu Hospital and Xi'an International Medical Center Hospital (China) 100 32 68 DCE + DWI KFLI Bounding box Path Hold-out method No 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.86
Fujioka [25] Tokyo Medical and Dental University (Japan) 72

12 normal

13 benign

47 MIP DCE InceptionResNetV2 Others None

Path,

 > 1y F/U

Tenfold Yes 0.83 Not reported 0.75 0.96
Haarburger [26] University Hospital Aachen (Germany) 408 103 305 DCE + T2

Mask-R-CNN;

Retina U-Net;

3D ResNet18 Naive; ResNet18;

Curriculum

Coarse localization by radiologist

Whole breast images

Path, two-year F/U Fivefold Yes

0.88

0.89

0.50

0.89

0.93

0.77

0.82

0.45

0.81

0.93

Not reported Not reported
Herent [27] Journées Francophones de Radiologie (France) 335 212 123

Post-contrast

T1

CNN Resnet-50 Manual bounding boxes Path Threefold No 0.82 Not reported Not reported Not reported
Hu [28] University of Chicago 616 199 728 DCE, T2 (not coupled) CNN

Path,

Rad reports

Fivefold 0.87 Not reported 0.78 0.79
Li [29] Zhiejiang Cancer Hospital, China 143 66 77 DCE 2D vs. 3D CNN Bounding box Path verified No 0.80 3D

0.78

3D

0.74

3D

0.82

3D

Liu [30] Multiple institutions in the US (ISPY-1 data)* 438 DCE CNN Square cropping in sagittal plane

Path

Rad annotation

Fivefold No 0.92 0.94 0.74 0.95
Marrone [31] University of Naples (Italy) 42 25 42 DCE 4D AlexNet CNN Manual ROI Path Tenfold No 0.76 0.76 0.83 0.79
Rasti [32] Imaging Center of Milad Hospital (Tehran) 112 59 53 DCE 1st Post-subtraction ME-CNN Path Fivefold No 0.99 0.96 0.98 0.95
Truhn [33] University of Aachen (Germany) 447 507 787 T2, pre- and post-contrast CNN ResNet 18 Manual segmentation

Path,

F/U

Tenfold No 0.88 Not reported 0.78 0.85
Wu [34] Beijing University People's Hospital (China) 130 59 71 DCE CNN Bounding box Path Yes 0.91 0.88 0.86 Not reported
Yurttakal [35] Haseki Training and Research Hospital (Turkey) 200 98 102 DCE subtraction CNN

Cropping tumorous regions

Rectang box

Path,

Rad

No Not reported 0.98 1.0 0.97
Zheng [36] Renji Hospital (China) 72 45 27

DCE + DWI

Multi-timepoints

DC-LSTM, ResNet50 Labels by radiologists, then cropped 40 × 40x40 Rad per path; Path for B/M benign vs. mal Threefold No Not reported 0.85 Not reported Not reported
Zhou [37]

Not specified

(Likely China)

133 62 91 DCE CNN ResNet50 Segment by fuzzy C-means after radiologist indicated location Path Tenfold No 0.97–0.99 0.89 0.94 0.81
Zhou [38] The Fifth Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital (China) 307 101 206 DCE

3D DenseNet GAP

3D DenseNet GMP

Ensemble

Bounding box

Path,

3y F/U

Yes

0.86

0.86

0.86

0.81

0.81

0.83

0.86

0.92

0.91

0.70

0.61

0.69

Studies are arranged alphabetically. DCE: dynamic contrast enhancement, DWI: diffusion-weighted imaging, MIP: maximum intensity projection, T2: T2-weighted MRI. F/U: follow-up, Rad: radiology, Path: pathology, CNN: convolutional neural network, AUC: area under the curve, Accu: accuracy, Sens: sensitivity, and Spec: specificity

*public dataset (see text for link)