Literature DB >> 35040677

Artificial Intelligence for Reducing Workload in Breast Cancer Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

Yoel Shoshan1, Ran Bakalo1, Flora Gilboa-Solomon1, Vadim Ratner1, Ella Barkan1, Michal Ozery-Flato1, Mika Amit1, Daniel Khapun1, Emily B Ambinder1, Eniola T Oluyemi1, Babita Panigrahi1, Philip A DiCarlo1, Michal Rosen-Zvi1, Lisa A Mullen1.   

Abstract

Background Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has higher diagnostic accuracy than digital mammography, but interpretation time is substantially longer. Artificial intelligence (AI) could improve reading efficiency. Purpose To evaluate the use of AI to reduce workload by filtering out normal DBT screens. Materials and Methods The retrospective study included 13 306 DBT examinations from 9919 women performed between June 2013 and November 2018 from two health care networks. The cohort was split into training, validation, and test sets (3948, 1661, and 4310 women, respectively). A workflow was simulated in which the AI model classified cancer-free examinations that could be dismissed from the screening worklist and used the original radiologists' interpretations on the rest of the worklist examinations. The AI system was also evaluated with a reader study of five breast radiologists reading the DBT mammograms of 205 women. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and recall rate were evaluated in both studies. Statistics were computed across 10 000 bootstrap samples to assess 95% CIs, noninferiority, and superiority tests. Results The model was tested on 4310 screened women (mean age, 60 years ± 11 [standard deviation]; 5182 DBT examinations). Compared with the radiologists' performance (417 of 459 detected cancers [90.8%], 477 recalls in 5182 examinations [9.2%]), the use of AI to automatically filter out cases would result in 39.6% less workload, noninferior sensitivity (413 of 459 detected cancers; 90.0%; P = .002), and 25% lower recall rate (358 recalls in 5182 examinations; 6.9%; P = .002). In the reader study, AUC was higher in the standalone AI compared with the mean reader (0.84 vs 0.81; P = .002). Conclusion The artificial intelligence model was able to identify normal digital breast tomosynthesis screening examinations, which decreased the number of examinations that required radiologist interpretation in a simulated clinical workflow. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Philpotts in this issue.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35040677     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.211105

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


  4 in total

Review 1.  The Impact of Dense Breasts on the Stage of Breast Cancer at Diagnosis: A Review and Options for Supplemental Screening.

Authors:  Paula B Gordon
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2022-05-17       Impact factor: 3.109

2.  Machine Learning-Based Radiological Features and Diagnostic Predictive Model of Xanthogranulomatous Cholecystitis.

Authors:  Qiao-Mei Zhou; Chuan-Xian Liu; Jia-Ping Zhou; Jie-Ni Yu; You Wang; Xiao-Jie Wang; Jian-Xia Xu; Ri-Sheng Yu
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-02-24       Impact factor: 6.244

3.  Multimodal Prediction of Five-Year Breast Cancer Recurrence in Women Who Receive Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.

Authors:  Simona Rabinovici-Cohen; Xosé M Fernández; Beatriz Grandal Rejo; Efrat Hexter; Oliver Hijano Cubelos; Juha Pajula; Harri Pölönen; Fabien Reyal; Michal Rosen-Zvi
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-09       Impact factor: 6.575

4.  Artificial intelligence in oncologic imaging.

Authors:  Melissa M Chen; Admir Terzic; Anton S Becker; Jason M Johnson; Carol C Wu; Max Wintermark; Christoph Wald; Jia Wu
Journal:  Eur J Radiol Open       Date:  2022-09-29
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.