Dataset Information

Improving Breast Cancer Detection Accuracy of Mammography with the Concurrent Use of an Artificial Intelligence Tool.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To evaluate the benefits of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based tool for two-dimensional mammography in the breast cancer detection process.

Materials and methods

In this multireader, multicase retrospective study, 14 radiologists assessed a dataset of 240 digital mammography images, acquired between 2013 and 2016, using a counterbalance design in which half of the dataset was read without AI and the other half with the help of AI during a first session and vice versa during a second session, which was separated from the first by a washout period. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and reading time were assessed as endpoints.

Results

The average AUC across readers was 0.769 (95% CI: 0.724, 0.814) without AI and 0.797 (95% CI: 0.754, 0.840) with AI. The average difference in AUC was 0.028 (95% CI: 0.002, 0.055, P = .035). Average sensitivity was increased by 0.033 when using AI support (P = .021). Reading time changed dependently to the AI-tool score. For low likelihood of malignancy (< 2.5%), the time was about the same in the first reading session and slightly decreased in the second reading session. For higher likelihood of malignancy, the reading time was on average increased with the use of AI.

Conclusion

This clinical investigation demonstrated that the concurrent use of this AI tool improved the diagnostic performance of radiologists in the detection of breast cancer without prolonging their workflow.Supplemental material is available for this article.© RSNA, 2020.

SUBMITTER: Pacile S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8082372 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate whether artificial intelligence (AI) for detecting breast cancer on mammography can improve the performance and time efficiency of radiologists reading mammograms.Materials and methodsA commercial deep learning-based software for mammography was validated using external data collected from 200 patients, 100 each with and without breast cancer (40 with benign lesions and 60 without lesions) from one hospital. Ten readers, including five breast specialist radiologists (BSRs) and five general radiologists (GRs), assessed all mammography images using a seven-point scale to rate the likelihood of malignancy in two sessions, with and without the aid of the AI-based software, and the reading time was automatically recorded using a web-based reporting system. Two reading sessions were conducted with a two-month washout period in between. Differences in the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), sensitivity, specificity, and reading time between reading with and without AI were analyzed, accounting for data clustering by readers when indicated.ResultsThe AUROC of the AI alone, BSR (average across five readers), and GR (average across five readers) groups was 0.915 (95% confidence interval, 0.876-0.954), 0.813 (0.756-0.870), and 0.684 (0.616-0.752), respectively. With AI assistance, the AUROC significantly increased to 0.884 (0.840-0.928) and 0.833 (0.779-0.887) in the BSR and GR groups, respectively (p = 0.007 and p < 0.001, respectively). Sensitivity was improved by AI assistance in both groups (74.6% vs. 88.6% in BSR, p < 0.001; 52.1% vs. 79.4% in GR, p < 0.001), but the specificity did not differ significantly (66.6% vs. 66.4% in BSR, p = 0.238; 70.8% vs. 70.0% in GR, p = 0.689). The average reading time pooled across readers was significantly decreased by AI assistance for BSRs (82.73 vs. 73.04 seconds, p < 0.001) but increased in GRs (35.44 vs. 42.52 seconds, p < 0.001).ConclusionAI-based software improved the performance of radiologists regardless of their experience and affected the reading time.

Project description:PurposeTo investigate how an artificial intelligence (AI) system performs at digital mammography (DM) from a screening population with ground truth defined by digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and whether AI could detect breast cancers at DM that had originally only been detected at DBT.Materials and methodsIn this secondary analysis of data from a prospective study, DM examinations from 14 768 women (mean age, 57 years), examined with both DM and DBT with independent double reading in the Malmӧ Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (MBTST) (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01091545; data collection, 2010-2015), were analyzed with an AI system. Of 136 screening-detected cancers, 95 cancers were detected at DM and 41 cancers were detected only at DBT. The system identifies suspicious areas in the image, scored 1-100, and provides a risk score of 1 to 10 for the whole examination. A cancer was defined as AI detected if the cancer lesion was correctly localized and scored at least 62 (threshold determined by the AI system developers), therefore resulting in the highest examination risk score of 10. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics, and detection performance was analyzed with receiver operating characteristics.ResultsThe highest examination risk score was assigned to 10% (1493 of 14 786) of the examinations. With 90.8% specificity, the AI system detected 75% (71 of 95) of the DM-detected cancers and 44% (18 of 41) of cancers at DM that had originally been detected only at DBT. The majority were invasive cancers (17 of 18).ConclusionAlmost half of the additional DBT-only screening-detected cancers in the MBTST were detected at DM with AI. AI did not reach double reading performance; however, if combined with double reading, AI has the potential to achieve a substantial portion of the benefit of DBT screening.Keywords: Computer-aided Diagnosis, Mammography, Breast, Diagnosis, Classification, Application DomainClinical trial registration no. NCT01091545© RSNA, 2021.

Project description:To determine whether cmAssist™, an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided detection (AI-CAD) algorithm, can be used to improve radiologists' sensitivity in breast cancer screening and detection. A blinded retrospective study was performed with a panel of seven radiologists using a cancer-enriched data set from 122 patients that included 90 false-negative mammograms obtained up to 5.8 years prior to diagnosis and 32 BIRADS 1 and 2 patients with a 2-year follow-up of negative diagnosis. The mammograms were performed between February 7, 2008 (earliest) and January 8, 2016 (latest), and were all originally interpreted as negative in conjunction with R2 ImageChecker CAD, version 10.0. In this study, the readers analyzed the 122 studies before and after review of cmAssist™, an AI-CAD software for mammography. The statistical significance of our findings was evaluated using Student's t test and bootstrap statistical analysis. There was a substantial and significant improvement in radiologist accuracy with use of cmAssist, as demonstrated in the 7.2% increase in the area-under-the-curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve with two-sided p value?<?0.01 for the reader group. All radiologists showed a significant improvement in their cancer detection rate (CDR) with the use of cmAssist (two-sided p value?=?0.030, confidence interval?=?95%). The readers detected between 25 and 71% (mean 51%) of the early cancers without assistance. With cmAssist, the overall reader CDR was 41 to 76% (mean 62%). The percentage increase in CDR for the reader panel was significant, ranging from 6 to 64% (mean 27%) with the use of cmAssist. There was less than 1% increase in the readers' false-positive recalls with use of cmAssist. With the use of cmAssist TM, there was a substantial and statistically significant improvement in radiologists' accuracy and sensitivity for detection of cancers that were originally missed. The percentage increase in CDR for the radiologists in the reader panel ranged from 6 to 64% (mean 27%) with the use of cmAssist, with negligible increase in false-positive recalls.

Project description:ObjectiveTo conduct a simulation study to determine whether artificial intelligence (AI)-aided mammography reading can reduce unnecessary recalls while maintaining cancer detection ability in women recalled after mammography screening.Materials and methodsA retrospective reader study was performed by screening mammographies of 793 women (mean age ± standard deviation, 50 ± 9 years) recalled to obtain supplemental mammographic views regarding screening mammography-detected abnormalities between January 2016 and December 2019 at two screening centers. Initial screening mammography examinations were interpreted by three dedicated breast radiologists sequentially, case by case, with and without AI aid, in a single session. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and recall rate for breast cancer diagnosis were obtained and compared between the two reading modes.ResultsFifty-four mammograms with cancer (35 invasive cancers and 19 ductal carcinomas in situ) and 739 mammograms with benign or negative findings were included. The reader-averaged AUC improved after AI aid, from 0.79 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74-0.85) to 0.89 (95% CI, 0.85-0.94) (p < 0.001). The reader-averaged specificities before and after AI aid were 41.9% (95% CI, 39.3%-44.5%) and 53.9% (95% CI, 50.9%-56.9%), respectively (p < 0.001). The reader-averaged sensitivity was not statistically different between AI-unaided and AI-aided readings: 89.5% (95% CI, 83.1%-95.9%) vs. 92.6% (95% CI, 86.2%-99.0%) (p = 0.053), although the sensitivities of the least experienced radiologists before and after AI aid were 79.6% (43 of 54 [95% CI, 66.5%-89.4%]) and 90.7% (49 of 54 [95% CI, 79.7%-96.9%]), respectively (p = 0.031). With AI aid, the reader-averaged recall rate decreased by from 60.4% (95% CI, 57.8%-62.9%) to 49.5% (95% CI, 46.5%-52.4%) (p < 0.001).ConclusionAI-aided reading reduced the number of recalls and improved the diagnostic performance in our simulation using women initially recalled for supplemental mammographic views after mammography screening.

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) for the detection of breast cancer in mammography screening practice.DesignSystematic review of test accuracy studies.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1 January 2010 to 17 May 2021.Eligibility criteriaStudies reporting test accuracy of AI algorithms, alone or in combination with radiologists, to detect cancer in women's digital mammograms in screening practice, or in test sets. Reference standard was biopsy with histology or follow-up (for screen negative women). Outcomes included test accuracy and cancer type detected.Study selection and synthesisTwo reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion and assessed the methodological quality of included studies using the QUality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. A single reviewer extracted data, which were checked by a second reviewer. Narrative data synthesis was performed.ResultsTwelve studies totalling 131 822 screened women were included. No prospective studies measuring test accuracy of AI in screening practice were found. Studies were of poor methodological quality. Three retrospective studies compared AI systems with the clinical decisions of the original radiologist, including 79 910 women, of whom 1878 had screen detected cancer or interval cancer within 12 months of screening. Thirty four (94%) of 36 AI systems evaluated in these studies were less accurate than a single radiologist, and all were less accurate than consensus of two or more radiologists. Five smaller studies (1086 women, 520 cancers) at high risk of bias and low generalisability to the clinical context reported that all five evaluated AI systems (as standalone to replace radiologist or as a reader aid) were more accurate than a single radiologist reading a test set in the laboratory. In three studies, AI used for triage screened out 53%, 45%, and 50% of women at low risk but also 10%, 4%, and 0% of cancers detected by radiologists.ConclusionsCurrent evidence for AI does not yet allow judgement of its accuracy in breast cancer screening programmes, and it is unclear where on the clinical pathway AI might be of most benefit. AI systems are not sufficiently specific to replace radiologist double reading in screening programmes. Promising results in smaller studies are not replicated in larger studies. Prospective studies are required to measure the effect of AI in clinical practice. Such studies will require clear stopping rules to ensure that AI does not reduce programme specificity.Study registrationProtocol registered as PROSPERO CRD42020213590.

Project description:Background and objectiveWe have witnessed tremendous advances in artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. Breast surgery, a subspecialty of general surgery, has notably benefited from AI technologies. This review aims to evaluate how AI has been integrated into breast surgery practices, to assess its effectiveness in improving surgical outcomes and operational efficiency, and to identify potential areas for future research and application.MethodsTwo authors independently conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases from January 1, 1950, to September 4, 2023, employing keywords pertinent to AI in conjunction with breast surgery or cancer. The search focused on English language publications, where relevance was determined through meticulous screening of titles, abstracts, and full-texts, followed by an additional review of references within these articles. The review covered a range of studies illustrating the applications of AI in breast surgery encompassing lesion diagnosis to postoperative follow-up. Publications focusing specifically on breast reconstruction were excluded.Key content and findingsAI models have preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative applications in the field of breast surgery. Using breast imaging scans and patient data, AI models have been designed to predict the risk of breast cancer and determine the need for breast cancer surgery. In addition, using breast imaging scans and histopathological slides, models were used for detecting, classifying, segmenting, grading, and staging breast tumors. Preoperative applications included patient education and the display of expected aesthetic outcomes. Models were also designed to provide intraoperative assistance for precise tumor resection and margin status assessment. As well, AI was used to predict postoperative complications, survival, and cancer recurrence.ConclusionsExtra research is required to move AI models from the experimental stage to actual implementation in healthcare. With the rapid evolution of AI, further applications are expected in the coming years including direct performance of breast surgery. Breast surgeons should be updated with the advances in AI applications in breast surgery to provide the best care for their patients.