Pages

Friday, 12 July 2019

How artificial intelligence can be used to more quickly and accurately diagnose breast cancer

New paper addresses need for early and accurate tools in diagnosing cancer

Date:
July 12, 2019
Source:
University of Southern California
Summary:
Breast ultrasound elastography is an emerging imaging technique used by doctors to help diagnose breast cancer by evaluating a lesion's stiffness in a non-invasive way. Researchers identified the critical role machine learning can play in making this technique more efficient and accurate in diagnosis.
feature-top
FULL STORY

Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death among women. It is also difficult to diagnose. Nearly one in 10 cancers is misdiagnosed as not cancerous, meaning that a patient can lose critical treatment time. On the other hand, the more mammograms a woman has, the more likely it is she will see a false positive result. After 10 years of annual mammograms, roughly two out of three patients who do not have cancer will be told that they do and be subjected to an invasive intervention, most likely a biopsy.
Breast ultrasound elastography is an emerging imaging technique that provides information about a potential breast lesion by evaluating its stiffness in a non-invasive way. Using more precise information about the characteristics of a cancerous versus non-cancerous breast lesion, this methodology has demonstrated more accuracy compared to traditional modes of imaging.
At the crux of this procedure, however, is a complex computational problem that can be time-consuming and cumbersome to solve. But what if instead we relied on the guidance of an algorithm?
Assad Oberai, USC Viterbi School of Engineering Hughes Professor in the Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, asked this exact question in the research paper, "Circumventing the solution of inverse problems in mechanics through deep learning: application to elasticity imaging," published in Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. Along with a team of researchers, including USC Viterbi Ph.D student Dhruv Patel, Oberai specifically considered the following: Can you train a machine to interpret real-world images using synthetic data and streamline the steps to diagnosis? The answer, Oberai says, is most likely yes.
In the case of breast ultrasound elastography, once an image of the affected area is taken, the image is analyzed to determine displacements inside the tissue. Using this data and the physical laws of mechanics, the spatial distribution of mechanical properties -- like its stiffness -- is determined. After this, one has to identify and quantify the appropriate features from the distribution, ultimately leading to a classification of the tumor as malignant or benign. The problem is the final two steps are computationally complex and inherently challenging.
In the research, Oberai sought to determine if they could skip the most complicated steps of this workflow entirely.
Cancerous breast tissue has two key properties: heterogeneity, which means some areas are soft and some are firm, and non-linear elasticity, which means the fibers offer a lot of resistance when pulled instead of the initial give associated with benign tumors. Knowing this, Oberai created physics-based models that showed varying levels of these key properties. He then used thousands of data inputs derived from these models in order to train the machine learning algorithm.
Synthetic Versus Real-World Data
But why would you use synthetically-derived data to train the algorithm? Wouldn't real data be better?
"If you had enough data available, you wouldn't," said Oberai. "But in the case of medical imaging, you're lucky if you have 1,000 images. In situations like this where data is scarce, these kinds of techniques become important."
Oberai and his team used about 12,000 synthetic images to train their machine learning algorithm. This process is similar in many ways to how photo identification software works, learning through repeated inputs how to recognize a particular person in an image, or how our brain learns to classify a cat versus a dog. Through enough examples, the algorithm is able to glean different features inherent to a benign tumor versus a malignant tumor and make the correct determination.
Oberai and his team achieved nearly 100 percent classification accuracy on other synthetic images. Once the algorithm was trained, they tested it on real-world images to determine how accurate it could be in providing a diagnosis, measuring these results against biopsy-confirmed diagnoses associated with these images.
"We had about an 80 percent accuracy rate. Next, we continue to refine the algorithm by using more real-world images as inputs," Oberai said.
Changing How Diagnoses are Made
There are two prevailing points that make machine learning an important tool in advancing the landscape for cancer detection and diagnosis. First, machine learning algorithms can detect patterns that might be opaque to humans. Through manipulation of many such patterns, the algorithm can produce an accurate diagnosis. Secondly, machine learning offers a chance to reduce operator-to-operator error.
So then, would this replace a radiologist's role in determining diagnosis? Definitely not. Oberai does not foresee an algorithm that serves as a sole arbiter of cancer diagnosis, but instead, a tool that helps guide radiologists to more accurate conclusions. "The general consensus is these types of algorithms have a significant role to play, including from imaging professionals whom it will impact the most. However, these algorithms will be most useful when they do not serve as black boxes," said Oberai. "What did it see that led it to the final conclusion? The algorithm must be explainable for it to work as intended."
Adapting the Algorithm for Other Cancers
Because cancer causes different types of changes in the tissue it impacts, the presence of cancer in a tissue can ultimately lead to a change in its physical properties, for example a change in density or porosity. These changes are can be discerned as a signal in medical images. The role of the machine learning algorithm is to pick out this signal and use it to determine whether a given tissue that is being imaged is cancerous.
Using these ideas, Oberai and his team are working with Vinay Duddalwar, professor of clinical radiology at the Keck School of Medicine of USC, to better diagnose renal cancer through contrast enhanced CT images. Using the principles identified in training the machine learning algorithm for breast cancer diagnosis, they are looking to train the algorithm on other features that might be prominently displayed in renal cancer cases, such as changes in tissue that reflect cancer-specific changes in a patient's microvasculature, the network of microvessels that help distribute blood within tissues.
Story Source:
Materials provided by University of Southern California. Original written by Avni Shah. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190712151928.htm

Thursday, 11 July 2019

Are sugary drinks causing cancer?

Sugary drinks - including fruit juice and fizzy pop - may increase the risk of cancer, French scientists say.
Fizzy drinkImage copyrightGETTY IMAGES
The link was suggested by a study, published in the British Medical Journal, that followed more than 100,000 people for five years.
The team at Université Sorbonne Paris Cité speculate that the impact of blood sugar levels may be to blame.
However, the research is far from definitive proof and experts have called for more research.

What counts as a sugary drink?

The researchers defined it as a drink with more than 5% sugar.
That included fruit juice (even with no added sugar), soft drinks, sweetened milkshakes, energy drinks and tea or coffee with sugar stirred in.
The team also looked at diet drinks using zero-calorie artificial sweeteners instead of sugar but found no link with cancer.

How big is the cancer risk?

The study concluded that drinking an extra 100ml of sugary drinks a day - about two cans a week - would increase the risk of developing cancer by 18%.
For every 1,000 people in the study, there were 22 cancers.
So, if they all drank an extra 100ml a day, it would result in four more cancers - taking the total to 26 per 1,000 per five years, according to the researchers.
"However, this assumes that there is a genuine causal link between sugary drink intake and developing cancer and this still needs further research," said Dr Graham Wheeler, a senior statistician at Cancer Research UK.
Of the 2,193 cancers found during the study, 693 were breast cancers, 291 were prostate cancers and 166 were colorectal cancers.
Drinking OJImage copyrightGETTY IMAGES

Is this definitive proof?

No - the way the study was designed means it can spot patterns in the data but cannot explain them.
So, it did show that the people who drank the most (about 185ml a day) had more cancer cases than those who drank the least (less than 30ml a day).
And one possible explanation is that sugary drinks are increasing cancer risk.
But, alternatively, people who drink the most sugary drinks could have other unhealthy behaviours (eating more salt and calories than then rest, for example) that raise their cancer risk and the sugary drinks themselves could be irrelevant.
So, the study cannot say that sugary drinks cause cancer.
"While this study doesn't offer a definitive causative answer about sugar and cancer, it does add to the overall picture of the importance of the current drive to reduce our sugar intake," said Dr Amelia Lake, from Teesside University.
She added: "Reducing the amount of sugar in our diet is extremely important."

Is this just about obesity?

Obesity is a major cause of some cancers - and excessive consumption of sugary drinks would increase the odds of putting on weight.
However, the study said it was not the whole story.
"Obesity and weight gain caused by sugary-drink excessive consumption certainly played a role in the association but they did not explain the whole association," Dr Mathilde Touvier, one of the researchers, told BBC News.
Infographic shows female human body and indicates parts of the body where obesity is linked to cancer

So what might be going on?

The French researchers say the link "was strongly driven by sugar content" and they blame blood sugar levels.
They also suggest some chemicals in the beverages, such as those that give an appealing colour, may be to blame.
However, their study does not attempt to answer this question.
"I find the biological plausibility of this difficult, given there was no significant difference between groups in relation to body weight or incidence of diabetes, which is often cited as an associated risk," Catherine Collins, an NHS dietitian, said.

What do the researchers say?

The team at Université Sorbonne Paris Cité say more large scale studies are needed to corroborate the findings.
"Sugary drinks are known to be associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular diseases, overweight, obesity and diabetes," said Dr Touvier.
"But what we show is they are also associated, maybe, with cancer risk."
They say their research is further evidence that taxing sugary drinks is a good idea.
"These data support the relevance of existing nutritional recommendations to limit sugary drink consumption, including 100% fruit juice, as well as policy actions, such as taxation and marketing restrictions targeting sugary drinks," their report says.
The UK introduced a sugar tax in 2018, with manufacturers having to pay a levy on high-sugar drinks they produce.

What do drinks companies have to say?

The British Soft Drinks Association said the study "does not provide evidence of cause, as the authors readily admit".
Its director general, Gavin Partington, added: "Soft drinks are safe to consume as part of a balanced diet.
"The soft drinks industry recognises it has a role to play in helping to tackle obesity, which is why we have led the way in calorie and sugar reduction."

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-48939671

Wednesday, 10 July 2019

Amazon’s Alexa will deliver NHS medical advice in the UK

The UK’s National Health Service (NHS) has announced what it claims is a world first: a partnership with Amazon’s Alexa to offer health advice from the NHS website.
By 
Photo by Dan Seifert / The Verge
Britons who ask Alexa basic health questions like “Alexa, how do I treat a migraine?” and “Alexa, what are the symptoms of flu?” will be given answers vetted by NHS health professionals and currently available on its website. At the moment, Alexa sources answers to such questions from a variety of places, including the Mayo Clinic and WebMD.
The partnership does not add significantly to Alexa’s skill-set, but it is an interesting step for the NHS. The UK’s Department of Health (DoH) says it hopes the move will reduce the pressure on health professionals in the country, giving people a new way to access reliable medical advice. It will also benefit individuals with disabilities, like sight impairments, who may find it difficult to use computers or smartphones to find the same information.
The UK’s Royal College of GPs welcomed the news, with the organization’s chairwoman, Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard, saying in a press statement that the collaboration “has the potential to help some patients work out what kind of care they need before considering whether to seek face-to-face medical help, especially for minor ailments.”
But Stokes-Lampard also warned that the scheme could have downsides. She warned that it is “vital that independent research is done to ensure that the advice given is safe, otherwise it could prevent people seeking proper medical help and create even more pressure on our overstretched GP service.”
Other experiments to improve NHS accessibility using technology have had mixed results. A partnership with healthtech firm Babylon, for example, which offers patient consultations via a smartphone app, has been criticized for gaming the UK’s healthcare system. Doctors says the app mainly attracts young, low-maintenance patients, while pushing harder and more expensive cases back to regular GPs.
It’s not clear if the new NHS answers will ever be available to Alexa users outside of the UK, or if the service will ever recommend that users seek a doctor instead. We’ve contacted the NHS to clarify these points and will update this story if we hear more.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/10/20688654/amazon-alexa-health-advice-uk-nhs