Literature DB >> 33944627

AI-based Strategies to Reduce Workload in Breast Cancer Screening with Mammography and Tomosynthesis: A Retrospective Evaluation.

José Luis Raya-Povedano1, Sara Romero-Martín1, Esperanza Elías-Cabot1, Albert Gubern-Mérida1, Alejandro Rodríguez-Ruiz1, Marina Álvarez-Benito1.   

Abstract

Background The workflow of breast cancer screening programs could be improved given the high workload and the high number of false-positive and false-negative assessments. Purpose To evaluate if using an artificial intelligence (AI) system could reduce workload without reducing cancer detection in breast cancer screening with digital mammography (DM) or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Materials and Methods Consecutive screening-paired and independently read DM and DBT images acquired from January 2015 to December 2016 were retrospectively collected from the Córdoba Tomosynthesis Screening Trial. The original reading settings were single or double reading of DM or DBT images. An AI system computed a cancer risk score for DM and DBT examinations independently. Each original setting was compared with a simulated autonomous AI triaging strategy (the least suspicious examinations for AI are not human-read; the rest are read in the same setting as the original, and examinations not recalled by radiologists but graded as very suspicious by AI are recalled) in terms of workload, sensitivity, and recall rate. The McNemar test with Bonferroni correction was used for statistical analysis. Results A total of 15 987 DM and DBT examinations (which included 98 screening-detected and 15 interval cancers) from 15 986 women (mean age ± standard deviation, 58 years ± 6) were evaluated. In comparison with double reading of DBT images (568 hours needed, 92 of 113 cancers detected, 706 recalls in 15 987 examinations), AI with DBT would result in 72.5% less workload (P < .001, 156 hours needed), noninferior sensitivity (95 of 113 cancers detected, P = .38), and 16.7% lower recall rate (P < .001, 588 recalls in 15 987 examinations). Similar results were obtained for AI with DM. In comparison with the original double reading of DM images (222 hours needed, 76 of 113 cancers detected, 807 recalls in 15 987 examinations), AI with DBT would result in 29.7% less workload (P < .001), 25.0% higher sensitivity (P < .001), and 27.1% lower recall rate (P < .001). Conclusion Digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis screening strategies based on artificial intelligence systems could reduce workload up to 70%. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license.

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 33944627     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2021203555

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  9 in total

1.  Using deep learning to safely exclude lesions with only ultrafast breast MRI to shorten acquisition and reading time.

Authors:  Xueping Jing; Mirjam Wielema; Ludo J Cornelissen; Margo van Gent; Willie M Iwema; Sunyi Zheng; Paul E Sijens; Matthijs Oudkerk; Monique D Dorrius; Peter M A van Ooijen
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2022-05-26       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  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 3.  AI-enhanced breast imaging: Where are we and where are we heading?

Authors:  Almir Bitencourt; Isaac Daimiel Naranjo; Roberto Lo Gullo; Carolina Rossi Saccarelli; Katja Pinker
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2021-07-30       Impact factor: 4.531

4.  Artificial Intelligence Evaluation of 122 969 Mammography Examinations from a Population-based Screening Program.

Authors:  Marthe Larsen; Camilla F Aglen; Christoph I Lee; Solveig R Hoff; Håkon Lund-Hanssen; Kristina Lång; Jan F Nygård; Giske Ursin; Solveig Hofvind
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2022-03-29       Impact factor: 29.146

5.  Deep Learning Using Multiple Degrees of Maximum-Intensity Projection for PET/CT Image Classification in Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Kanae Takahashi; Tomoyuki Fujioka; Jun Oyama; Mio Mori; Emi Yamaga; Yuka Yashima; Tomoki Imokawa; Atsushi Hayashi; Yu Kujiraoka; Junichi Tsuchiya; Goshi Oda; Tsuyoshi Nakagawa; Ukihide Tateishi
Journal:  Tomography       Date:  2022-01-05

Review 6.  Advancements in Oncology with Artificial Intelligence-A Review Article.

Authors:  Nikitha Vobugari; Vikranth Raja; Udhav Sethi; Kejal Gandhi; Kishore Raja; Salim R Surani
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-06       Impact factor: 6.639

7.  Diagnostic study on clinical feasibility of an AI-based diagnostic system as a second reader on mobile CT images: a preliminary result.

Authors:  Kaiyue Diao; Yuntian Chen; Ying Liu; Bo-Jiang Chen; Wan-Jiang Li; Lin Zhang; Ya-Li Qu; Tong Zhang; Yun Zhang; Min Wu; Kang Li; Bin Song
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2022-06

Review 8.  Application of Artificial Intelligence Methods for Imaging of Spinal Metastasis.

Authors:  Wilson Ong; Lei Zhu; Wenqiao Zhang; Tricia Kuah; Desmond Shi Wei Lim; Xi Zhen Low; Yee Liang Thian; Ee Chin Teo; Jiong Hao Tan; Naresh Kumar; Balamurugan A Vellayappan; Beng Chin Ooi; Swee Tian Quek; Andrew Makmur; James Thomas Patrick Decourcy Hallinan
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-20       Impact factor: 6.575

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

Authors:  Karoline Freeman; Julia Geppert; Chris Stinton; Daniel Todkill; Samantha Johnson; Aileen Clarke; Sian Taylor-Phillips
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2021-09-01
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.