Literature DB >> 31894144

International evaluation of an AI system for breast cancer screening.

Scott Mayer McKinney1, Marcin Sieniek2, Varun Godbole2, Jonathan Godwin3, Natasha Antropova3, Hutan Ashrafian4,5, Trevor Back3, Mary Chesus3, Greg S Corrado2, Ara Darzi4,5,6, Mozziyar Etemadi7, Florencia Garcia-Vicente7, Fiona J Gilbert8, Mark Halling-Brown9, Demis Hassabis3, Sunny Jansen10, Alan Karthikesalingam11, Christopher J Kelly11, Dominic King11, Joseph R Ledsam3, David Melnick7, Hormuz Mostofi2, Lily Peng2, Joshua Jay Reicher12, Bernardino Romera-Paredes3, Richard Sidebottom13,14, Mustafa Suleyman3, Daniel Tse15, Kenneth C Young9, Jeffrey De Fauw3, Shravya Shetty16.   

Abstract

Screening mammography aims to identify breast cancer at earlier stages of the disease, when treatment can be more successful1. Despite the existence of screening programmes worldwide, the interpretation of mammograms is affected by high rates of false positives and false negatives2. Here we present an artificial intelligence (AI) system that is capable of surpassing human experts in breast cancer prediction. To assess its performance in the clinical setting, we curated a large representative dataset from the UK and a large enriched dataset from the USA. We show an absolute reduction of 5.7% and 1.2% (USA and UK) in false positives and 9.4% and 2.7% in false negatives. We provide evidence of the ability of the system to generalize from the UK to the USA. In an independent study of six radiologists, the AI system outperformed all of the human readers: the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) for the AI system was greater than the AUC-ROC for the average radiologist by an absolute margin of 11.5%. We ran a simulation in which the AI system participated in the double-reading process that is used in the UK, and found that the AI system maintained non-inferior performance and reduced the workload of the second reader by 88%. This robust assessment of the AI system paves the way for clinical trials to improve the accuracy and efficiency of breast cancer screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31894144     DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1799-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nature        ISSN: 0028-0836            Impact factor:   49.962


  48 in total

Review 1.  The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review.

Authors:  M G Marmot; D G Altman; D A Cameron; J A Dewar; S G Thompson; M Wilcox
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2013-06-06       Impact factor: 7.640

2.  Consequences of false-positive screening mammograms.

Authors:  Anna N A Tosteson; Dennis G Fryback; Cristina S Hammond; Lucy G Hanna; Margaret R Grove; Mary Brown; Qianfei Wang; Karen Lindfors; Etta D Pisano
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 21.873

3.  Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Authors:  Albert L Siu
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Swedish two-county trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades.

Authors:  László Tabár; Bedrich Vitak; Tony Hsiu-Hsi Chen; Amy Ming-Fang Yen; Anders Cohen; Tibor Tot; Sherry Yueh-Hsia Chiu; Sam Li-Sheng Chen; Jean Ching-Yuan Fann; Johan Rosell; Helena Fohlin; Robert A Smith; Stephen W Duffy
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-06-28       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Screening Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

Authors:  Constance D Lehman; Robert F Arao; Brian L Sprague; Janie M Lee; Diana S M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Louise M Henderson; Tracy Onega; Anna N A Tosteson; Garth H Rauscher; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2016-12-05       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Breast cancer screening with imaging: recommendations from the Society of Breast Imaging and the ACR on the use of mammography, breast MRI, breast ultrasound, and other technologies for the detection of clinically occult breast cancer.

Authors:  Carol H Lee; D David Dershaw; Daniel Kopans; Phil Evans; Barbara Monsees; Debra Monticciolo; R James Brenner; Lawrence Bassett; Wendie Berg; Stephen Feig; Edward Hendrick; Ellen Mendelson; Carl D'Orsi; Edward Sickles; Linda Warren Burhenne
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 5.532

7.  Variability in interpretive performance at screening mammography and radiologists' characteristics associated with accuracy.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Sara L Jackson; Linn Abraham; Diana L Miglioretti; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske; Tracy Onega; Robert D Rosenberg; Edward A Sickles; Diana S M Buist
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-10-28       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital Screening Mammography With and Without Computer-Aided Detection.

Authors:  Constance D Lehman; Robert D Wellman; Diana S M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Anna N A Tosteson; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 21.873

9.  Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries.

Authors:  Freddie Bray; Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rebecca L Siegel; Lindsey A Torre; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2018-09-12       Impact factor: 508.702

10.  The epidemiology, radiology and biological characteristics of interval breast cancers in population mammography screening.

Authors:  Nehmat Houssami; Kylie Hunter
Journal:  NPJ Breast Cancer       Date:  2017-04-13
View more
  267 in total

1.  Breast cancer screening: in the era of personalized medicine, age is just a number.

Authors:  Andrea Cozzi; Simone Schiaffino; Paolo Giorgi Rossi; Francesco Sardanelli
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2020-12

Review 2.  [Artificial intelligence in cardiology : Relevance, current applications, and future developments].

Authors:  Bettina Zippel-Schultz; Carsten Schultz; Dirk Müller-Wieland; Andrew B Remppis; Martin Stockburger; Christian Perings; Thomas M Helms
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  2021-01-15

Review 3.  Deep learning in breast radiology: current progress and future directions.

Authors:  William C Ou; Dogan Polat; Basak E Dogan
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-01-15       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  OPTIMAM Mammography Image Database: A Large-Scale Resource of Mammography Images and Clinical Data.

Authors:  Mark D Halling-Brown; Lucy M Warren; Dominic Ward; Emma Lewis; Alistair Mackenzie; Matthew G Wallis; Louise S Wilkinson; Rosalind M Given-Wilson; Rita McAvinchey; Kenneth C Young
Journal:  Radiol Artif Intell       Date:  2020-11-25

Review 5.  Deep learning in histopathology: the path to the clinic.

Authors:  Jeroen van der Laak; Geert Litjens; Francesco Ciompi
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2021-05-14       Impact factor: 53.440

6.  Preventing Intraoperative Hypotension: Artificial Intelligence versus Augmented Intelligence?

Authors:  Mozziyar Etemadi; Charles W Hogue
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2020-12       Impact factor: 7.892

7.  Changing Health-Related Behaviors 6: Analysis, Interpretation, and Application of Big Data.

Authors:  Randy Giffen; Donald Bryant
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2021

8.  Utility of deep learning for the diagnosis of otosclerosis on temporal bone CT.

Authors:  Noriyuki Fujima; V Carlota Andreu-Arasa; Keita Onoue; Peter C Weber; Richard D Hubbell; Bindu N Setty; Osamu Sakai
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-01-06       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  External validation of AI algorithms in breast radiology: the last healthcare security checkpoint?

Authors:  Teodoro Martin-Noguerol; Antonio Luna
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2021-06

Review 10.  How Machine Learning Will Transform Biomedicine.

Authors:  Jeremy Goecks; Vahid Jalili; Laura M Heiser; Joe W Gray
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2020-04-02       Impact factor: 41.582

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.