DBT-DINO: Toward Foundation Model-Based Analysis of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
retrospective_cohort · Level III
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 42550018.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1148/radiol.254034.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
Background Foundation models show promise in medical imaging but remain underexplored in three-dimensional modalities. Despite the adoption of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in breast cancer screening, no dedicated foundation model currently exists for this modality. Purpose To develop and evaluate a foundation model for DBT (DBT-DINO) and assess the impact of domain-specific pretraining across multiple clinical tasks. Materials and Methods This retrospective study used DBT images from Mass General Brigham acquired between March 2011 and February 2024. Self-supervised pretraining was performed using Meta AI's DINOv2 methodology on more than 25 million two-dimensional sections from 487 975 DBT volumes from 27 990 patients. Three downstream tasks were evaluated: <i>(a)</i> breast density classification using 5000 screening examinations, <i>(b)</i> 5-year risk of developing biopsy-proven breast cancer using 106 417 screening examinations, and <i>(c)</i> lesion detection using 393 annotated volumes. The performance of DBT-DINO was compared with that of ImageNet-pretrained DINOv2 baselines using McNemar and DeLong tests. Results A total of 4981 patients (mean age, 57.76 years ± 11.40 [SD]; 4855 female) were included for density classification, 31 561 patients (mean age, 60.09 years ± 10.47; 31 559 female) were included for risk prediction, and 199 female patients were included for lesion detection. For breast density classification, DBT-DINO achieved 79% (786 of 997 examinations) accuracy, outperforming the DINOv2 baseline (73% [728 of 997 examinations]; <i>P</i> < .001). For 5-year breast cancer risk prediction, DBT-DINO had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.78 and DINOv2 had an AUC of 0.76 (<i>P</i> = .057), showing no evidence of a difference. In lesion detection, DINOv2 had an average sensitivity of 67% (91 of 136 lesions), whereas DBT-DINO had a sensitivity of 62% (84 of 136 lesions) (<i>P</i> = .60), again with no evidence of a difference. Conclusion DBT-DINO demonstrated strong performance in breast density classification; however, there was no evidence of a difference compared with the ImageNet baseline in 5-year breast cancer risk prediction or lesion detection, suggesting that domain-specific pretraining for localized detection tasks required further refinement. © RSNA, 2026 <i>Supplemental material is available for this article.</i> See also the editorial by Wu in this issue.
Medical subject headings
- Breast Neoplasms
- Mammography
- Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted