Literature DB >> 32076660

Improving Accuracy and Efficiency with Concurrent Use of Artificial Intelligence for Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

Emily F Conant1, Alicia Y Toledano1, Senthil Periaswamy1, Sergei V Fotin1, Jonathan Go1, Justin E Boatsman1, Jeffrey W Hoffmeister1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to shorten digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) reading time while maintaining or improving accuracy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A deep learning AI system was developed to identify suspicious soft-tissue and calcified lesions in DBT images. A reader study compared the performance of 24 radiologists (13 of whom were breast subspecialists) reading 260 DBT examinations (including 65 cancer cases) both with and without AI. Readings occurred in two sessions separated by at least 4 weeks. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), reading time, sensitivity, specificity, and recall rate were evaluated with statistical methods for multireader, multicase studies.
RESULTS: Radiologist performance for the detection of malignant lesions, measured by mean AUC, increased 0.057 with the use of AI (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.028, 0.087; P < .01), from 0.795 without AI to 0.852 with AI. Reading time decreased 52.7% (95% CI: 41.8%, 61.5%; P < .01), from 64.1 seconds without to 30.4 seconds with AI. Sensitivity increased from 77.0% without AI to 85.0% with AI (8.0%; 95% CI: 2.6%, 13.4%; P < .01), specificity increased from 62.7% without to 69.6% with AI (6.9%; 95% CI: 3.0%, 10.8%; noninferiority P < .01), and recall rate for noncancers decreased from 38.0% without to 30.9% with AI (7.2%; 95% CI: 3.1%, 11.2%; noninferiority P < .01).
CONCLUSION: The concurrent use of an accurate DBT AI system was found to improve cancer detection efficacy in a reader study that demonstrated increases in AUC, sensitivity, and specificity and a reduction in recall rate and reading time.© RSNA, 2019See also the commentary by Hsu and Hoyt in this issue. 2019 by the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

Entities:  

Year:  2019        PMID: 32076660      PMCID: PMC6677281          DOI: 10.1148/ryai.2019180096

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiol Artif Intell        ISSN: 2638-6100


  28 in total

1.  Interpretation time of computer-aided detection at screening mammography.

Authors:  Philip M Tchou; Tamara Miner Haygood; E Neely Atkinson; Tanya W Stephens; Paul L Davis; Elsa M Arribas; William R Geiser; Gary J Whitman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-08-02       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Accuracy of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Depicting Breast Cancer Subgroups in a UK Retrospective Reading Study (TOMMY Trial).

Authors:  Fiona J Gilbert; Lorraine Tucker; Maureen G C Gillan; Paula Willsher; Julie Cooke; Karen A Duncan; Michael J Michell; Hilary M Dobson; Yit Yoong Lim; Tamara Suaris; Susan M Astley; Oliver Morrish; Kenneth C Young; Stephen W Duffy
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-07-15       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Multireader, multimodality receiver operating characteristic curve studies: hypothesis testing and sample size estimation using an analysis of variance approach with dependent observations.

Authors:  N A Obuchowski
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 3.173

4.  Does Reader Performance with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Vary according to Experience with Two-dimensional Mammography?

Authors:  Lorraine Tucker; Fiona J Gilbert; Susan M Astley; Amanda Dibden; Archana Seth; Juliet Morel; Sara Bundred; Janet Litherland; Herman Klassen; Gerald Lip; Hema Purushothaman; Hilary M Dobson; Linda McClure; Philippa Skippage; Katherine Stoner; Caroline Kissin; Ursula Beetles; Yit Yoong Lim; Emma Hurley; Jane Goligher; Rumana Rahim; Tanja J Gagliardi; Tamara Suaris; Stephen W Duffy
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-03-13       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program.

Authors:  Per Skaane; Andriy I Bandos; Randi Gullien; Ellen B Eben; Ulrika Ekseth; Unni Haakenaasen; Mina Izadi; Ingvild N Jebsen; Gunnar Jahr; Mona Krager; Loren T Niklason; Solveig Hofvind; David Gur
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-01-07       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography.

Authors:  Joshua J Fenton; Stephen H Taplin; Patricia A Carney; Linn Abraham; Edward A Sickles; Carl D'Orsi; Eric A Berns; Gary Cutter; R Edward Hendrick; William E Barlow; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-04-05       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Compared With Digital Mammography: Outcomes Analysis From 3 Years of Breast Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Elizabeth S McDonald; Andrew Oustimov; Susan P Weinstein; Marie B Synnestvedt; Mitchell Schnall; Emily F Conant
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2016-06-01       Impact factor: 31.777

8.  Clinical Performance of Synthesized Two-dimensional Mammography Combined with Tomosynthesis in a Large Screening Population.

Authors:  Mireille P Aujero; Sara C Gavenonis; Ron Benjamin; Zugui Zhang; Jacqueline S Holt
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-02-21       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography.

Authors:  Sarah M Friedewald; Elizabeth A Rafferty; Stephen L Rose; Melissa A Durand; Donna M Plecha; Julianne S Greenberg; Mary K Hayes; Debra S Copit; Kara L Carlson; Thomas M Cink; Lora D Barke; Linda N Greer; Dave P Miller; Emily F Conant
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2014-06-25       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  The "laboratory" effect: comparing radiologists' performance and variability during prospective clinical and laboratory mammography interpretations.

Authors:  David Gur; Andriy I Bandos; Cathy S Cohen; Christiane M Hakim; Lara A Hardesty; Marie A Ganott; Ronald L Perrin; William R Poller; Ratan Shah; Jules H Sumkin; Luisa P Wallace; Howard E Rockette
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-08-05       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  23 in total

Review 1.  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

Review 2.  Stakeholders' perspectives on the future of artificial intelligence in radiology: a scoping review.

Authors:  Ling Yang; Ioana Cezara Ene; Reza Arabi Belaghi; David Koff; Nina Stein; Pasqualina Lina Santaguida
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-09-21       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Deep Learning Predicts Interval and Screening-detected Cancer from Screening Mammograms: A Case-Case-Control Study in 6369 Women.

Authors:  Xun Zhu; Thomas K Wolfgruber; Lambert Leong; Matthew Jensen; Christopher Scott; Stacey Winham; Peter Sadowski; Celine Vachon; Karla Kerlikowske; John A Shepherd
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2021-09-07       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Impact of artificial intelligence in breast cancer screening with mammography.

Authors:  Lan-Anh Dang; Emmanuel Chazard; Edouard Poncelet; Teodora Serb; Aniela Rusu; Xavier Pauwels; Clémence Parsy; Thibault Poclet; Hugo Cauliez; Constance Engelaere; Guillaume Ramette; Charlotte Brienne; Sofiane Dujardin; Nicolas Laurent
Journal:  Breast Cancer       Date:  2022-06-28       Impact factor: 3.307

Review 5.  Artificial Intelligence: A Primer for Breast Imaging Radiologists.

Authors:  Manisha Bahl
Journal:  J Breast Imaging       Date:  2020-06-19

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

Authors:  Serena Pacilè; January Lopez; Pauline Chone; Thomas Bertinotti; Jean Marie Grouin; Pierre Fillard
Journal:  Radiol Artif Intell       Date:  2020-11-04

7.  Using Time as a Measure of Impact for AI Systems: Implications in Breast Screening.

Authors:  William Hsu; Anne C Hoyt
Journal:  Radiol Artif Intell       Date:  2019-07-31

8.  Independent External Validation of Artificial Intelligence Algorithms for Automated Interpretation of Screening Mammography: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Anna W Anderson; M Luke Marinovich; Nehmat Houssami; Kathryn P Lowry; Joann G Elmore; Diana S M Buist; Solveig Hofvind; Christoph I Lee
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2022-01-20       Impact factor: 5.532

9.  Brain MRI Deep Learning and Bayesian Inference System Augments Radiology Resident Performance.

Authors:  Jeffrey D Rudie; Jeffrey Duda; Michael Tran Duong; Po-Hao Chen; Long Xie; Robert Kurtz; Jeffrey B Ware; Joshua Choi; Raghav R Mattay; Emmanuel J Botzolakis; James C Gee; R Nick Bryan; Tessa S Cook; Suyash Mohan; Ilya M Nasrallah; Andreas M Rauschecker
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2021-06-15       Impact factor: 4.903

Review 10.  Adoption of artificial intelligence in breast imaging: evaluation, ethical constraints and limitations.

Authors:  Sarah E Hickman; Gabrielle C Baxter; Fiona J Gilbert
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2021-03-26       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.