Literature DB >> 34870215

Artificial Intelligence Detection of Missed Cancers at Digital Mammography That Were Detected at Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

Victor Dahlblom1, Ingvar Andersson1, Kristina Lång1, Anders Tingberg1, Sophia Zackrisson1, Magnus Dustler1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate how an artificial intelligence (AI) system performs at digital mammography (DM) from a screening population with ground truth defined by digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and whether AI could detect breast cancers at DM that had originally only been detected at DBT.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this secondary analysis of data from a prospective study, DM examinations from 14 768 women (mean age, 57 years), examined with both DM and DBT with independent double reading in the Malmӧ Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (MBTST) (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01091545; data collection, 2010-2015), were analyzed with an AI system. Of 136 screening-detected cancers, 95 cancers were detected at DM and 41 cancers were detected only at DBT. The system identifies suspicious areas in the image, scored 1-100, and provides a risk score of 1 to 10 for the whole examination. A cancer was defined as AI detected if the cancer lesion was correctly localized and scored at least 62 (threshold determined by the AI system developers), therefore resulting in the highest examination risk score of 10. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics, and detection performance was analyzed with receiver operating characteristics.
RESULTS: The highest examination risk score was assigned to 10% (1493 of 14 786) of the examinations. With 90.8% specificity, the AI system detected 75% (71 of 95) of the DM-detected cancers and 44% (18 of 41) of cancers at DM that had originally been detected only at DBT. The majority were invasive cancers (17 of 18).
CONCLUSION: Almost half of the additional DBT-only screening-detected cancers in the MBTST were detected at DM with AI. AI did not reach double reading performance; however, if combined with double reading, AI has the potential to achieve a substantial portion of the benefit of DBT screening.Keywords: Computer-aided Diagnosis, Mammography, Breast, Diagnosis, Classification, Application DomainClinical trial registration no. NCT01091545© RSNA, 2021. 2021 by the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Application Domain; Breast; Classification; Computer-aided Diagnosis; Diagnosis; Mammography

Year:  2021        PMID: 34870215      PMCID: PMC8637235          DOI: 10.1148/ryai.2021200299

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


  32 in total

1.  Factors affecting recall rate and false positive fraction in breast cancer screening with breast tomosynthesis - A statistical approach.

Authors:  Aldana Rosso; Kristina Lång; Ingemar F Petersson; Sophia Zackrisson
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2015-09-11       Impact factor: 4.380

Review 2.  A review of computer aided detection in mammography.

Authors:  Janine Katzen; Katerina Dodelzon
Journal:  Clin Imaging       Date:  2018-09-07       Impact factor: 1.605

3.  Effect of artificial intelligence-based triaging of breast cancer screening mammograms on cancer detection and radiologist workload: a retrospective simulation study.

Authors:  Karin Dembrower; Erik Wåhlin; Yue Liu; Mattie Salim; Kevin Smith; Peter Lindholm; Martin Eklund; Fredrik Strand
Journal:  Lancet Digit Health       Date:  2020-09

4.  One-view breast tomosynthesis versus two-view mammography in the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (MBTST): a prospective, population-based, diagnostic accuracy study.

Authors:  Sophia Zackrisson; Kristina Lång; Aldana Rosso; Kristin Johnson; Magnus Dustler; Daniel Förnvik; Hannie Förnvik; Hanna Sartor; Pontus Timberg; Anders Tingberg; Ingvar Andersson
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2018-10-12       Impact factor: 41.316

Review 5.  European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition--summary document.

Authors:  N Perry; M Broeders; C de Wolf; S Törnberg; R Holland; L von Karsa
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2007-11-17       Impact factor: 32.976

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.  Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study.

Authors:  Kristina Lång; Ingvar Andersson; Aldana Rosso; Anders Tingberg; Pontus Timberg; Sophia Zackrisson
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-05-01       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Can we reduce the workload of mammographic screening by automatic identification of normal exams with artificial intelligence? A feasibility study.

Authors:  Alejandro Rodriguez-Ruiz; Kristina Lång; Albert Gubern-Merida; Jonas Teuwen; Mireille Broeders; Gisella Gennaro; Paola Clauser; Thomas H Helbich; Margarita Chevalier; Thomas Mertelmeier; Matthew G Wallis; Ingvar Andersson; Sophia Zackrisson; Ioannis Sechopoulos; Ritse M Mann
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-04-16       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  International evaluation of an AI system for breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Scott Mayer McKinney; Marcin Sieniek; Varun Godbole; Jonathan Godwin; Natasha Antropova; Hutan Ashrafian; Trevor Back; Mary Chesus; Greg S Corrado; Ara Darzi; Mozziyar Etemadi; Florencia Garcia-Vicente; Fiona J Gilbert; Mark Halling-Brown; Demis Hassabis; Sunny Jansen; Alan Karthikesalingam; Christopher J Kelly; Dominic King; Joseph R Ledsam; David Melnick; Hormuz Mostofi; Lily Peng; Joshua Jay Reicher; Bernardino Romera-Paredes; Richard Sidebottom; Mustafa Suleyman; Daniel Tse; Kenneth C Young; Jeffrey De Fauw; Shravya Shetty
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2020-01-01       Impact factor: 49.962

10.  False positives in breast cancer screening with one-view breast tomosynthesis: An analysis of findings leading to recall, work-up and biopsy rates in the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial.

Authors:  Kristina Lång; Matilda Nergården; Ingvar Andersson; Aldana Rosso; Sophia Zackrisson
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-03-04       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.