Dataset Information

Use of artificial intelligence for image analysis in breast cancer screening programmes: systematic review of test accuracy.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To examine the accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) for the detection of breast cancer in mammography screening practice.

Design

Systematic review of test accuracy studies.

Data sources

Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1 January 2010 to 17 May 2021.

Eligibility criteria

Studies 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 synthesis

Two 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.

Results

Twelve 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.

Conclusions

Current 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 registration

Protocol registered as PROSPERO CRD42020213590.

SUBMITTER: Freeman K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8409323 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesDigital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) increases sensitivity of mammography and is increasingly implemented in breast cancer screening. However, the large volume of images increases the risk of reading errors and reading time. This study aims to investigate whether the accuracy of breast radiologists reading wide-angle DBT increases with the aid of an artificial intelligence (AI) support system. Also, the impact on reading time was assessed and the stand-alone performance of the AI system in the detection of malignancies was compared to the average radiologist.MethodsA multi-reader multi-case study was performed with 240 bilateral DBT exams (71 breasts with cancer lesions, 70 breasts with benign findings, 339 normal breasts). Exams were interpreted by 18 radiologists, with and without AI support, providing cancer suspicion scores per breast. Using AI support, radiologists were shown examination-based and region-based cancer likelihood scores. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and reading time per exam were compared between reading conditions using mixed-models analysis of variance.ResultsOn average, the AUC was higher using AI support (0.863 vs 0.833; p = 0.0025). Using AI support, reading time per DBT exam was reduced (p < 0.001) from 41 (95% CI = 39-42 s) to 36 s (95% CI = 35- 37 s). The AUC of the stand-alone AI system was non-inferior to the AUC of the average radiologist (+0.007, p = 0.8115).ConclusionsRadiologists improved their cancer detection and reduced reading time when evaluating DBT examinations using an AI reading support system.Key points• Radiologists improved their cancer detection accuracy in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) when using an AI system for support, while simultaneously reducing reading time. • The stand-alone breast cancer detection performance of an AI system is non-inferior to the average performance of radiologists for reading digital breast tomosynthesis exams. • The use of an AI support system could make advanced and more reliable imaging techniques more accessible and could allow for more cost-effective breast screening programs with DBT.

Project description:PurposeTo evaluate the diagnostic performance of image-based artificial intelligence (AI) studies in predicting muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). (2) To assess the reporting quality and methodological quality of these studies by Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM), Radiomics Quality Score (RQS), and Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST).Materials and methodsWe searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library databases up to October 30, 2023. The eligible studies were evaluated using CLAIM, RQS, and PROBAST. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and the diagnostic performances of these models for MIBC were also calculated.ResultsTwenty-one studies containing 4256 patients were included, of which 17 studies were employed for the quantitative statistical analysis. The CLAIM study adherence rate ranged from 52.5% to 75%, with a median of 64.1%. The RQS points of each study ranged from 2.78% to 50% points, with a median of 30.56% points. All models were rated as high overall ROB. The pooled area under the curve was 0.85 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81-0.88) for computed tomography, 0.92 (95% CI 0.89-0.94) for MRI, 0.89 (95% CI 0.86-0.92) for radiomics and 0.91 (95% CI 0.88-0.93) for deep learning, respectively.ConclusionAlthough AI-powered muscle-invasive bladder cancer-predictive models showed promising performance in the meta-analysis, the reporting quality and the methodological quality were generally low, with a high risk of bias.Critical relevance statementArtificial intelligence might improve the management of patients with bladder cancer. Multiple models for muscle-invasive bladder cancer prediction were developed. Quality assessment is needed to promote clinical application.Key pointsImage-based artificial intelligence models could aid in the identification of muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Current studies had low reporting quality, low methodological quality, and a high risk of bias. Future studies could focus on larger sample sizes and more transparent reporting of pathological evaluation, model explanation, and failure and sensitivity analyses.

Project description:BACKGROUND. Potential approaches for abbreviated knee MRI, including prospective acceleration with deep learning, have achieved limited clinical implementation. OBJECTIVE. The objective of this study was to evaluate the interreader agreement between conventional knee MRI and a 5-minute 3D quantitative double-echo steady-state (qDESS) sequence with automatic T2 mapping and deep learning super-resolutionaugmentation and to compare the diagnostic performance of the two methods regarding findings from arthroscopic surgery. METHODS. Fifty-one patients with knee pain underwent knee MRI that included an additional 3D qDESS sequence with automatic T2 mapping. Fourier interpolation was followed by prospective deep learning super resolution to enhance qDESS slice resolution twofold. A musculoskeletal radiologist and a radiology resident performed independent retrospective evaluations of articular cartilage, menisci, ligaments, bones, extensor mechanism, and synovium using conventional MRI. Following a 2-month washout period, readers reviewed qDESS images alone followed by qDESS with the automatic T2 maps. Interreader agreement between conventional MRI and qDESS was computed using percentage agreement and Cohen kappa. The sensitivity and specificity of conventional MRI, qDESS alone, and qDESS plus T2 mapping were compared with arthroscopic findings using exact McNemar tests. RESULTS. Conventional MRI and qDESS showed 92% agreement in evaluating all tissues. Kappa was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.76-0.81) across all imaging findings. In 43 patients who underwent arthroscopy, sensitivity and specificity were not significantly different (p = .23 to > .99) between conventional MRI (sensitivity, 58-93%; specificity, 27-87%) and qDESS alone (sensitivity, 54-90%; specificity, 23-91%) for cartilage, menisci, ligaments, and synovium. For grade 1 cartilage lesions, sensitivity and specificity were 33% and 56%, respectively, for conventional MRI; 23% and 53% for qDESS (p = .81); and 46% and 39% for qDESS with T2 mapping (p = .80). For grade 2A lesions, values were 27% and 53% for conventional MRI, 26% and 52% for qDESS (p = .02), and 58% and 40% for qDESS with T2 mapping (p < .001). CONCLUSION. The qDESS method prospectively augmented with deep learning showed strong interreader agreement with conventional knee MRI and near-equivalent diagnostic performance regarding arthroscopy. The ability of qDESS to automatically generate T2 maps increases sensitivity for cartilage abnormalities. CLINICAL IMPACT. Using prospective artificial intelligence to enhance qDESS image quality may facilitate an abbreviated knee MRI protocol while generating quantitative T2 maps.

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.

Project description:IntroductionStandards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Study (STARD) was developed to improve the completeness and transparency of reporting in studies investigating diagnostic test accuracy. However, its current form, STARD 2015 does not address the issues and challenges raised by artificial intelligence (AI)-centred interventions. As such, we propose an AI-specific version of the STARD checklist (STARD-AI), which focuses on the reporting of AI diagnostic test accuracy studies. This paper describes the methods that will be used to develop STARD-AI.Methods and analysisThe development of the STARD-AI checklist can be distilled into six stages. (1) A project organisation phase has been undertaken, during which a Project Team and a Steering Committee were established; (2) An item generation process has been completed following a literature review, a patient and public involvement and engagement exercise and an online scoping survey of international experts; (3) A three-round modified Delphi consensus methodology is underway, which will culminate in a teleconference consensus meeting of experts; (4) Thereafter, the Project Team will draft the initial STARD-AI checklist and the accompanying documents; (5) A piloting phase among expert users will be undertaken to identify items which are either unclear or missing. This process, consisting of surveys and semistructured interviews, will contribute towards the explanation and elaboration document and (6) On finalisation of the manuscripts, the group's efforts turn towards an organised dissemination and implementation strategy to maximise end-user adoption.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been granted by the Joint Research Compliance Office at Imperial College London (reference number: 19IC5679). A dissemination strategy will be aimed towards five groups of stakeholders: (1) academia, (2) policy, (3) guidelines and regulation, (4) industry and (5) public and non-specific stakeholders. We anticipate that dissemination will take place in Q3 of 2021.