Literature DB >> 35348377

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

Marthe Larsen1, Camilla F Aglen1, Christoph I Lee1, Solveig R Hoff1, Håkon Lund-Hanssen1, Kristina Lång1, Jan F Nygård1, Giske Ursin1, Solveig Hofvind1.   

Abstract

Background Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown promising results for cancer detection with mammographic screening. However, evidence related to the use of AI in real screening settings remain sparse. Purpose To compare the performance of a commercially available AI system with routine, independent double reading with consensus as performed in a population-based screening program. Furthermore, the histopathologic characteristics of tumors with different AI scores were explored. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, 122 969 screening examinations from 47 877 women performed at four screening units in BreastScreen Norway from October 2009 to December 2018 were included. The data set included 752 screen-detected cancers (6.1 per 1000 examinations) and 205 interval cancers (1.7 per 1000 examinations). Each examination had an AI score between 1 and 10, where 1 indicated low risk of breast cancer and 10 indicated high risk. Threshold 1, threshold 2, and threshold 3 were used to assess the performance of the AI system as a binary decision tool (selected vs not selected). Threshold 1 was set at an AI score of 10, threshold 2 was set to yield a selection rate similar to the consensus rate (8.8%), and threshold 3 was set to yield a selection rate similar to an average individual radiologist (5.8%). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize screening outcomes. Results A total of 653 of 752 screen-detected cancers (86.8%) and 92 of 205 interval cancers (44.9%) were given a score of 10 by the AI system (threshold 1). Using threshold 3, 80.1% of the screen-detected cancers (602 of 752) and 30.7% of the interval cancers (63 of 205) were selected. Screen-detected cancer with AI scores not selected using the thresholds had favorable histopathologic characteristics compared to those selected; opposite results were observed for interval cancer. Conclusion The proportion of screen-detected cancers not selected by the artificial intelligence (AI) system at the three evaluated thresholds was less than 20%. The overall performance of the AI system was promising according to cancer detection. © RSNA, 2022.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35348377      PMCID: PMC9131175          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.212381

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   29.146


  25 in total

1.  Data quality at the Cancer Registry of Norway: an overview of comparability, completeness, validity and timeliness.

Authors:  Inger Kristin Larsen; Milada Småstuen; Tom Børge Johannesen; Frøydis Langmark; Donald Maxwell Parkin; Freddie Bray; Bjørn Møller
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2008-12-16       Impact factor: 9.162

Review 2.  Automation bias: a systematic review of frequency, effect mediators, and mitigators.

Authors:  Kate Goddard; Abdul Roudsari; Jeremy C Wyatt
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2011-06-16       Impact factor: 4.497

3.  Influence of Mammography Volume on Radiologists' Performance: Results from BreastScreen Norway.

Authors:  Solveig Roth Hoff; Tor-Åge Myklebust; Christoph I Lee; Solveig Hofvind
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-05-28       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Stand-Alone Artificial Intelligence for Breast Cancer Detection in Mammography: Comparison With 101 Radiologists.

Authors:  Alejandro Rodriguez-Ruiz; Kristina Lång; Albert Gubern-Merida; Mireille Broeders; Gisella Gennaro; Paola Clauser; Thomas H Helbich; Margarita Chevalier; Tao Tan; Thomas Mertelmeier; Matthew G Wallis; Ingvar Andersson; Sophia Zackrisson; Ritse M Mann; Ioannis Sechopoulos
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2019-09-01       Impact factor: 13.506

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

Authors:  José Luis Raya-Povedano; Sara Romero-Martín; Esperanza Elías-Cabot; Albert Gubern-Mérida; Alejandro Rodríguez-Ruiz; Marina Álvarez-Benito
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2021-05-04       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  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

7.  Interval Breast Cancer Rates and Histopathologic Tumor Characteristics after False-Positive Findings at Mammography in a Population-based Screening Program.

Authors:  Solveig Hofvind; Silje Sagstad; Sofie Sebuødegård; Ying Chen; Marta Roman; Christoph I Lee
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-12-14       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Predicting Breast Cancer by Applying Deep Learning to Linked Health Records and Mammograms.

Authors:  Ayelet Akselrod-Ballin; Michal Chorev; Yoel Shoshan; Adam Spiro; Alon Hazan; Roie Melamed; Ella Barkan; Esma Herzel; Shaked Naor; Ehud Karavani; Gideon Koren; Yaara Goldschmidt; Varda Shalev; Michal Rosen-Zvi; Michal Guindy
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-06-18       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  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

10.  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
View more
  1 in total

1.  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
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.