Artificial intelligence in breast cancer screening: primary care provider preferences.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being proposed for use in medicine, including breast cancer screening (BCS). Little is known, however, about referring primary care providers' (PCPs') preferences for this technology.Methods
We identified the most important attributes of AI BCS for ordering PCPs using qualitative interviews: sensitivity, specificity, radiologist involvement, understandability of AI decision-making, supporting evidence, and diversity of training data. We invited US-based PCPs to participate in an internet-based experiment designed to force participants to trade off among the attributes of hypothetical AI BCS products. Responses were analyzed with random parameters logit and latent class models to assess how different attributes affect the choice to recommend AI-enhanced screening.Results
Ninety-one PCPs participated. Sensitivity was most important, and most PCPs viewed radiologist participation in mammography interpretation as important. Other important attributes were specificity, understandability of AI decision-making, and diversity of data. We identified 3 classes of respondents: "Sensitivity First" (41%) found sensitivity to be more than twice as important as other attributes; "Against AI Autonomy" (24%) wanted radiologists to confirm every image; "Uncertain Trade-Offs" (35%) viewed most attributes as having similar importance. A majority (76%) accepted the use of AI in a "triage" role that would allow it to filter out likely negatives without radiologist confirmation.Conclusions and relevance
Sensitivity was the most important attribute overall, but other key attributes should be addressed to produce clinically acceptable products. We also found that most PCPs accept the use of AI to make determinations about likely negative mammograms without radiologist confirmation.
SUBMITTER: Hendrix N
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8200265 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Skin cancer is currently the most common type of cancer among Caucasians. The increase in life expectancy, along with new diagnostic tools and treatments for skin cancer, has resulted in unprecedented changes in patient care and has generated a great burden on healthcare systems. Early detection of skin tumors is expected to reduce this burden. Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms that support skin cancer diagnoses have been shown to perform at least as well as dermatologists' diagnoses. Recognizing the need for clinically and economically efficient means of diagnosing skin cancers at early stages in the primary care attention, we developed an efficient computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) system to be used by primary care physicians (PCP). Additionally, we developed a smartphone application with a protocol for data acquisition (i.e., photographs, demographic data and short clinical histories) and AI algorithms for clinical and dermoscopic image classification. For each lesion analyzed, a report is generated, showing the image of the suspected lesion and its respective Heat Map; the predicted probability of the suspected lesion being melanoma or malignant; the probable diagnosis based on that probability; and a suggestion on how the lesion should be managed. The accuracy of the dermoscopy model for melanoma was 89.3%, and for the clinical model, 84.7% with 0.91 and 0.89 sensitivity and 0.89 and 0.83 specificity, respectively. Both models achieved an area under the curve (AUC) above 0.9. Our CAD system can screen skin cancers to guide lesion management by PCPs, especially in the contexts where the access to the dermatologist can be difficult or time consuming. Its use can enable risk stratification of lesions and/or patients and dramatically improve timely access to specialist care for those requiring urgent attention.
| S-EPMC8457457 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTreatment decisions for patients with early-stage breast cancer often involve discussions with multiple oncology providers. However, the extent to which primary care providers (PCPs) are involved in initial treatment decisions remains unknown.MethodsA stratified random sample of PCPs identified by newly diagnosed patients with early-stage breast cancer from the Georgia and Los Angeles Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries were surveyed (n = 517; a 61% response rate). PCPs were asked how frequently they discussed surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy options with patients; how comfortable they were with these discussions; whether they had the necessary knowledge to participate in decision making; and what their confidence was in their ability to help (on 5-item Likert-type scales). Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify PCP-reported attitudes associated with more PCP participation in each treatment decision.ResultsIn this sample, 34% of PCPs reported that they discussed surgery, 23% discussed radiation, and 22% discussed chemotherapy options with their patients. Of those who reported more involvement in surgical decisions, 22% reported that they were not comfortable having a discussion, and 17% did not feel that they had the necessary knowledge to participate in treatment decision making. PCPs who positively appraised their ability to participate were more likely to participate in all 3 decisions (odds ratio [OR] for surgery, 6.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.16-8.68; OR for radiation, 8.37; 95% CI, 5.16-13.58; OR for chemotherapy, 6.56; 95% CI, 4.23-10.17).ConclusionsA third of PCPs reported participating in breast cancer treatment decisions, yet gaps in their knowledge about decision making and in their confidence in their ability to help exist. Efforts to increase PCPs' knowledge about breast cancer treatment options may be warranted.
| S-EPMC6509002 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesDigital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) can detect more cancers than the current standard breast screening method, digital mammography (DM); however, it can substantially increase the reading workload and thus hinder implementation in screening. Artificial intelligence (AI) might be a solution. The aim of this study was to retrospectively test different ways of using AI in a screening workflow.MethodsAn AI system was used to analyse 14,772 double-read single-view DBT examinations from a screening trial with paired DM double reading. Three scenarios were studied: if AI can identify normal cases that can be excluded from human reading; if AI can replace the second reader; if AI can replace both readers. The number of detected cancers and false positives was compared with DM or DBT double reading.ResultsBy excluding normal cases and only reading 50.5% (7460/14,772) of all examinations, 95% (121/127) of the DBT double reading detected cancers could be detected. Compared to DM screening, 27% (26/95) more cancers could be detected (p < 0.001) while keeping recall rates at the same level. With AI replacing the second reader, 95% (120/127) of the DBT double reading detected cancers could be detected-26% (25/95) more than DM screening (p < 0.001)-while increasing recall rates by 53%. AI alone with DBT has a sensitivity similar to DM double reading (p = 0.689).ConclusionAI can open up possibilities for implementing DBT screening and detecting more cancers with the total reading workload unchanged. Considering the potential legal and psychological implications, replacing the second reader with AI would probably be most the feasible approach.Key points• Breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis and artificial intelligence can detect more cancers than mammography screening without increasing screen-reading workload. • Artificial intelligence can either exclude low-risk cases from double reading or replace the second reader. • Retrospective study based on paired mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis screening data.
| S-EPMC10121528 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIf screening participants do not trust computerized decision-making, screening participation may be affected by the introduction of such methods.PurposeTo survey breast cancer screening participants' attitudes towards potential future uses of computerization.Material and methodsA survey was constructed. Women in a breast cancer screening program were invited via the final report letter to participate. Data were collected from February 2018 to March 2019 and 2196 surveys were completed. Questions asked participants to rate propositions using Likert scales. Data analysis was done using χ2 and logistic regression tests.ResultsThe mean age of participants was 61 years. Response rate was 1.3%. Of the submitted surveys, 97.5% were complete; 38% of respondents reported a preference for a computer-only examination. The highest level of confidence was given a computer-only reading followed by a physician reading. Participants with > 12 years of education were more likely to prefer a computer-only reading (odds ratio [OR] 1.655, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.168-2.344), had a greater trust in letting a computer determine screening intervals and the need for a supplemental MRI (OR 1.606, 95% CI 1.171-2.202 and OR 1.577, 95% CI 1.107-2.247, respectively). Age was not found to be a significant predictor.ConclusionA high level of trust in computerized decision-making was expressed. Higher age was associated with a lower understanding of technology but did not affect attitudes to computerized decision-making. A lower level of education was associated with a lower trust in computerization. This may be valuable knowledge for future studies.
| S-EPMC6901736 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveMammographic screening for breast cancer is an early use case for artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare. This is an active area of research, mostly focused on the development and evaluation of individual algorithms. A growing normative literature argues that AI systems should reflect human values, but it is unclear what this requires in specific AI implementation scenarios. Our objective was to understand women's values regarding the use of AI to read mammograms in breast cancer screening.MethodsWe ran eight online discussion groups with a total of 50 women, focused on their expectations and normative judgements regarding the use of AI in breast screening.ResultsAlthough women were positive about the potential of breast screening AI, they argued strongly that humans must remain as central actors in breast screening systems and consistently expressed high expectations of the performance of breast screening AI. Women expected clear lines of responsibility for decision-making, to be able to contest decisions, and for AI to perform equally well for all programme participants. Women often imagined both that AI might replace radiographers and that AI implementation might allow more women to be screened: screening programmes will need to communicate carefully about these issues.ConclusionsTo meet women's expectations, screening programmes should delay implementation until there is strong evidence that the use of AI systems improves screening performance, should ensure that human expertise and responsibility remain central in screening programmes, and should avoid using AI in ways that exacerbate inequities.
| S-EPMC10408316 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceContemporary approaches to artificial intelligence (AI) based on deep learning have generated interest in the application of AI to breast cancer screening (BCS). The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved several next-generation AI products indicated for BCS in recent years; however, questions regarding their accuracy, appropriate use, and clinical utility remain.ObjectivesTo describe the current FDA regulatory process for AI products, summarize the evidence used to support FDA clearance and approval of AI products indicated for BCS, consider the advantages and limitations of current regulatory approaches, and suggest ways to improve the current system.Evidence reviewPremarket notifications and other publicly available documents used for FDA clearance and approval of AI products indicated for BCS from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021.FindingsNine AI products indicated for BCS for identification of suggestive lesions and mammogram triage were included. Most of the products had been cleared through the 510(k) pathway, and all clearances were based on previously collected retrospective data; 6 products used multicenter designs; 7 products used enriched data; and 4 lacked details on whether products were externally validated. Test performance measures, including sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve, were the main outcomes reported. Most of the devices used tissue biopsy as the criterion standard for BCS accuracy evaluation. Other clinical outcome measures, including cancer stage at diagnosis and interval cancer detection, were not reported for any of the devices.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this review suggest important gaps in reporting of data sources, data set type, validation approach, and clinical utility assessment. As AI-assisted reading becomes more widespread in BCS and other radiologic examinations, strengthened FDA evidentiary regulatory standards, development of postmarketing surveillance, a focus on clinically meaningful outcomes, and stakeholder engagement will be critical for ensuring the safety and efficacy of these products.
| S-EPMC10623674 | biostudies-literature
Project description:RationaleLung cancer screening has a mortality benefit to high-risk smokers, but implementation remains suboptimal. Providers represent the key entry point to screening, and an understanding of provider perspectives on lung cancer screening is necessary to improve referral and overall implementation.ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to understand knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, barriers, and facilitators to screening in a diverse group of referring pulmonologists and primary care providers.MethodsWe conducted an electronic survey of primary care and pulmonary providers within a tertiary care medical center across different practice sites. The survey covered the following domains: 1) beliefs and assessment of evidence, 2) knowledge of lung cancer screening and guidelines, 3) current screening practices, 4) barriers and facilitators, and 5) demographic and practice characteristics.ResultsThe 196 participants included 80% primary care clinicians and 19% pulmonologists (1% others). Forty-one percent practiced at university-based or affiliated clinics, 47% at county hospital-based clinics, and 12% at other or unidentified sites. The majority endorsed lung cancer screening effectiveness (74%); however, performance on knowledge-based assessments of screening eligibility, documentation, and nodule management was suboptimal. Key barriers included inadequate time (36%), inadequate staffing (36%), and patients having too many other illnesses to address screening (38%). Decision aids, which are used at the point of referral, were commonly identified both as important lung cancer screening clinical facilitators (51%) and as provider knowledge facilitators (59%). There were several differences by provider specialty, including primary care providers more frequently reporting time constraints and their patients having too many other illnesses to address screening as significant barriers to lung cancer screening.ConclusionsProviders endorsed the benefits of lung cancer screening, but there are limitations in provider knowledge of key screening components. The most frequently reported barriers to screening represent a lack of clinical time or resources to address lung cancer screening in clinical practice. Facilitators for nodule management as well as point-of-care referral materials may be helpful in reducing knowledge gaps and the clinical burden of referral. These are all modifiable factors, which could be addressed to increase screening referral. Differences in attitudes and barriers by specialty should also be considered to optimize screening implementation.
| S-EPMC5822418 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Nearly one-quarter of all cancer deaths worldwide are due to lung cancer, making this disease the leading cause of cancer death among both men and women. The most important determinant of survival in lung cancer is the disease stage at diagnosis, thus developing an effective screening method for early diagnosis has been a long-term goal in lung cancer care. In the last decade, and based on the results of large clinical trials, lung cancer screening programs using low-dose computer tomography (LDCT) in high-risk individuals have been implemented in some clinical settings, however, this method has various limitations, especially a high false-positive rate which eventually results in a number of unnecessary diagnostic and therapeutic interventions among the screened subjects. By using complex algorithms and software, artificial intelligence (AI) is capable to emulate human cognition in the analysis, interpretation, and comprehension of complicated data and currently, it is being successfully applied in various healthcare settings. Taking advantage of the ability of AI to quantify information from images, and its superior capability in recognizing complex patterns in images compared to humans, AI has the potential to aid clinicians in the interpretation of LDCT images obtained in the setting of lung cancer screening. In the last decade, several AI models aimed to improve lung cancer detection have been reported. Some algorithms performed equal or even outperformed experienced radiologists in distinguishing benign from malign lung nodules and some of those models improved diagnostic accuracy and decreased the false-positive rate. Here, we discuss recent publications in which AI algorithms are utilized to assess chest computer tomography (CT) scans imaging obtaining in the setting of lung cancer screening.
| S-EPMC7760157 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide, with the highest incidence reported in high-income countries. However, because of the slow progression of neoplastic precursors, along with the opportunity for their endoscopic detection and resection, a well-designed endoscopic screening program is expected to strongly decrease colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. In this regard, quality of colonoscopy has been clearly related with the risk of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. Recently, the development of artificial intelligence (AI) applications in the medical field has been growing in interest. Through machine learning processes, and, more recently, deep learning, if a very high numbers of learning samples are available, AI systems may automatically extract specific features from endoscopic images/videos without human intervention, helping the endoscopists in different aspects of their daily practice. The aim of this review is to summarize the current knowledge on AI-aided endoscopy, and to outline its potential role in colorectal cancer prevention.
| S-EPMC10047293 | biostudies-literature
Project description:As breast screening services move towards use of healthcare AI (HCAI) for screen reading, research on public views of HCAI can inform more person-centered implementation. We synthesise reviews of public views of HCAI in general, and review primary studies of women's views of AI in breast screening. People generally appear open to HCAI and its potential benefits, despite a wide range of concerns; similarly, women are open towards AI in breast screening because of the potential benefits, but are concerned about a wide range of risks. Women want radiologists to remain central; oversight, evaluation and performance, care, equity and bias, transparency, and accountability are key issues; women may be less tolerant of AI error than of human error. Using our recent Australian primary study, we illustrate both the value of informing participants before collecting data, and women's views. The 40 screening-age women in this study stipulated four main conditions on breast screening AI implementation: 1) maintaining human control; 2) strong evidence of performance; 3) supporting familiarisation with AI; and 4) providing adequate reasons for introducing AI. Three solutions were offered to support familiarisation: transparency and information; slow and staged implementation; and allowing women to opt-out of AI reading. We provide recommendations to guide both implementation of AI in healthcare and research on public views of HCAI. Breast screening services should be transparent about AI use and share information about breast screening AI with women. Implementation should be slow and staged, providing opt-out options if possible. Screening services should demonstrate strong governance to maintain clinician control, demonstrate excellent AI system performance, assure data protection and bias mitigation, and give good reasons to justify implementation. When these measures are put in place, women are more likely to see HCAI use in breast screening as legitimate and acceptable.
| S-EPMC11362777 | biostudies-literature