Possible strategies for use of artificial intelligence in screen-reading of mammograms, based on retrospective data from 122,969 screening examinations

The efficacy of artificial intelligence (AI) in detecting interval cancers in the national screening program of a middle-income country

AIM

We aimed to investigate the efficiency and accuracy of an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm for detecting interval cancers in a middle-income country's national screening program.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 2,129,486 mammograms reported as BIRADS 1 and 2 were matched with the national cancer registry for interval cancers (IC). The IC group consisted of 442 cases, of which 36 were excluded due to having mammograms incompatible with the AI system. A control group of 446 women with two negative consequent mammograms was defined as time-proven normal and constituted the normal group. The cancer risk scores of both groups were determined from 1 to 10 with the AI system. The sensitivity and specificity values of the AI system were defined in terms of IC detection. The IC group was divided into subgroups with six-month intervals according to their time from screening to diagnosis: 0-6 months, 6-12 months, 12-18 months, and 18-24 months. The diagnostic performance of the AI system for all patients was evaluated using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis. The diagnostic performance of the AI system for major and minor findings that expert readers determined was re-evaluated.

RESULTS

AI labeled 53% of ICs with the highest score of 10. The sensitivity of AI in detecting ICs was 53.7% and 38.5% at specificities of 90% and 95%, respectively. Area under the curve (AUC) of AI in detecting major signs was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.90-0.95) with a sensitivity of 81.6% and 72.4% at specificities of 90% and 95%, respectively (95% CI: 0.73-0.88 and 95% CI: 0.60-0.82 respectively) and minor signs was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.87-0.92) with a sensitivity of 70% and 53% at a specificity of 90% and 95%, respectively (95% CI: 0.65-0.82 and 95% CI: 0.52-0.71 respectively). In subgroup analysis for time to diagnosis, the AUC value of the AI system was higher in the 0-6 month period than in later periods.

CONCLUSION

This study showed the potential of AI in detecting ICs in initial mammograms and reducing human errors and undetected cancers.

Artificial Intelligence for breast cancer detection: Technology, challenges, and prospects

PURPOSE

This review provides an overview of the current state of artificial intelligence (AI) technology for automated detection of breast cancer in digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). It aims to discuss the technology, available AI systems, and the challenges faced by AI in breast cancer screening.

METHODS

The review examines the development of AI technology in breast cancer detection, focusing on deep learning (DL) techniques and their differences from traditional computer-aided detection (CAD) systems. It discusses data pre-processing, learning paradigms, and the need for independent validation approaches.

RESULTS

DL-based AI systems have shown significant improvements in breast cancer detection. They have the potential to enhance screening outcomes, reduce false negatives and positives, and detect subtle abnormalities missed by human observers. However, challenges like the lack of standardised datasets, potential bias in training data, and regulatory approval hinder their widespread adoption.

CONCLUSIONS

AI technology has the potential to improve breast cancer screening by increasing accuracy and reducing radiologist workload. DL-based AI systems show promise in enhancing detection performance and eliminating variability among observers. Standardised guidelines and trustworthy AI practices are necessary to ensure fairness, traceability, and robustness. Further research and validation are needed to establish clinical trust in AI. Collaboration between researchers, clinicians, and regulatory bodies is crucial to address challenges and promote AI implementation in breast cancer screening.

Women's attitudes and perspectives on the use of artificial intelligence in the assessment of screening mammograms

PURPOSE

To investigate attitudes and perspectives on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the assessment of screening mammograms among women invited to BreastScreen Norway.

METHOD

An anonymous survey was sent to all women invited to BreastScreen Norway during the study period, October 10, 2022, to December 25, 2022 (n = 84,543). Questions were answered on a 10-point Likert scale and as multiple-choice, addressing knowledge of AI, willingness to participate in AI studies, information needs, confidence in AI results and AI assisted reading strategies, and thoughts on concerns and benefits of AI in mammography screening. Analyses were performed using χ2 and logistic regression tests.

RESULTS

General knowledge of AI was reported as extensive by 11.0% of the 8,355 respondents. Respondents were willing to participate in studies using AI either for decision support (64.0%) or triaging (54.9%). Being informed about use of AI-assisted image assessment was considered important, and a reading strategy of AI in combination with one radiologist preferred. Having extensive knowledge of AI was associated with willingness to participate in AI studies (decision support; odds ratio [OR]: 5.1, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.1-6.4, and triaging; OR: 3.4, 95% CI: 2.8-4.0) and trust in AI's independent assessment (OR: 6.8, 95% CI: 5.7, 8.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Women invited to BreastScreen Norway had a positive attitude towards the use of AI in image assessment, given that human readers are still involved. Targeted information and increased public knowledge of AI could help achieve high participation in AI studies and successful implementation of AI in mammography screening.

Performance of an Artificial Intelligence System for Breast Cancer Detection on Screening Mammograms from BreastScreen Norway

Purpose To explore the stand-alone breast cancer detection performance, at different risk score thresholds, of a commercially available artificial intelligence (AI) system. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included information from 661 695 digital mammographic examinations performed among 242 629 female individuals screened as a part of BreastScreen Norway, 2004-2018. The study sample included 3807 screen-detected cancers and 1110 interval breast cancers. A continuous examination-level risk score by the AI system was used to measure performance as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) with 95% CIs and cancer detection at different AI risk score thresholds. Results The AUC of the AI system was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.92, 0.93) for screen-detected cancers and interval breast cancers combined and 0.97 (95% CI: 0.97, 0.97) for screen-detected cancers. In a setting where 10% of the examinations with the highest AI risk scores were defined as positive and 90% with the lowest scores as negative, 92.0% (3502 of 3807) of the screen-detected cancers and 44.6% (495 of 1110) of the interval breast cancers were identified with AI. In this scenario, 68.5% (10 987 of 16 040) of false-positive screening results (negative recall assessment) were considered negative by AI. When 50% was used as the cutoff, 99.3% (3781 of 3807) of the screen-detected cancers and 85.2% (946 of 1110) of the interval breast cancers were identified as positive by AI, whereas 17.0% (2725 of 16 040) of the false-positive results were considered negative. Conclusion The AI system showed high performance in detecting breast cancers within 2 years of screening mammography and a potential for use to triage low-risk mammograms to reduce radiologist workload. Keywords: Mammography, Breast, Screening, Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), Deep Learning Algorithms Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2024 See also commentary by Bahl and Do in this issue.

Artificial Intelligence in Senology - Where Do We Stand and What Are the Future Horizons?

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is defined as the simulation of human intelligence by a digital computer or robotic system and has become a hype in current conversations. A subcategory of AI is deep learning, which is based on complex artificial neural networks that mimic the principles of human synaptic plasticity and layered brain architectures, and uses large-scale data processing. AI-based image analysis in breast screening programmes has shown non-inferior sensitivity, reduces workload by up to 70% by pre-selecting normal cases, and reduces recall by 25% compared to human double reading. Natural language programs such as ChatGPT (OpenAI) achieve 80% and higher accuracy in advising and decision making compared to the gold standard: human judgement. This does not yet meet the necessary requirements for medical products in terms of patient safety. The main advantage of AI is that it can perform routine but complex tasks much faster and with fewer errors than humans. The main concerns in healthcare are the stability of AI systems, cybersecurity, liability and transparency. More widespread use of AI could affect human jobs in healthcare and increase technological dependency. AI in senology is just beginning to evolve towards better forms with improved properties. Responsible training of AI systems with meaningful raw data and scientific studies to analyse their performance in the real world are necessary to keep AI on track. To mitigate significant risks, it will be necessary to balance active promotion and development of quality-assured AI systems with careful regulation. AI regulation has only recently included in transnational legal frameworks, as the European Union's AI Act was the first comprehensive legal framework to be published, in December 2023. Unacceptable AI systems will be banned if they are deemed to pose a clear threat to people's fundamental rights. Using AI and combining it with human wisdom, empathy and affection will be the method of choice for further, fruitful development of tomorrow's senology.

Screening in Patients With Dense Breasts: Comparison of Mammography, Artificial Intelligence, and Supplementary Ultrasound

BACKGROUND. Screening mammography has decreased performance in patients with dense breasts. Supplementary screening ultrasound is a recommended option in such patients, although it has yielded mixed results in prior investigations. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to compare the performance characteristics of screening mammography alone, standalone artificial intelligence (AI), ultrasound alone, and mammography in combination with AI and/or ultrasound in patients with dense breasts. METHODS. This retrospective study included 1325 women (mean age, 53 years) with dense breasts who underwent both screening mammography and supplementary breast ultrasound within a 1-month interval from January 2017 to December 2017; prior mammography and prior ultrasound examinations were available for comparison in 91.2% and 91.8%, respectively. Mammography and ultrasound examinations were interpreted by one of 15 radiologists (five staff; 10 fellows); clinical reports were used for the present analysis. A commercial AI tool was used to retrospectively evaluate mammographic examinations for presence of cancer. Screening performances were compared among mammography, AI, ultrasound, and test combinations, using generalized estimating equations. Benign diagnoses required 24 months or longer of imaging stability. RESULTS. Twelve cancers (six invasive ductal carcinoma; six ductal carcinoma in situ) were diagnosed. Mammography, standalone AI, and ultrasound showed cancer detection rates (per 1000 patients) of 6.0, 6.8, and 6.0 (all p > .05); recall rates of 4.4%, 11.9%, and 9.2% (all p < .05); sensitivity of 66.7%, 75.0%, and 66.7% (all p > .05); specificity of 96.2%, 88.7%, and 91.3% (all p < .05); and accuracy of 95.9%, 88.5%, and 91.1% (all p < .05). Mammography with AI, mammography with ultrasound, and mammography with both ultrasound and AI showed cancer detection rates of 7.5, 9.1, and 9.1 (all p > .05); recall rates of 14.9, 11.7, and 21.4 (all p < .05); sensitivity of 83.3%, 100.0%, and 100.0% (all p > .05); specificity of 85.8%, 89.1%, and 79.4% (all p < .05); and accuracy of 85.7%, 89.2%, and 79.5% (all p < .05). CONCLUSION. Mammography with supplementary ultrasound showed higher accuracy, higher specificity, and lower recall rate in comparison with mammography with AI and in comparison with mammography with both ultrasound and AI. CLINICAL IMPACT. The findings fail to show benefit of AI with respect to screening mammography performed with supplementary breast ultrasound in patients with dense breasts.

Breast cancer detection accuracy of AI in an entire screening population: a retrospective, multicentre study

BACKGROUND

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are proposed as a replacement of the first reader in double reading within mammography screening. We aimed to assess cancer detection accuracy of an AI system in a Danish screening population.

METHODS

We retrieved a consecutive screening cohort from the Region of Southern Denmark including all participating women between Aug 4, 2014, and August 15, 2018. Screening mammograms were processed by a commercial AI system and detection accuracy was evaluated in two scenarios, Standalone AI and AI-integrated screening replacing first reader, with first reader and double reading with arbitration (combined reading) as comparators, respectively. Two AI-score cut-off points were applied by matching at mean first reader sensitivity (AIsens) and specificity (AIspec). Reference standard was histopathology-proven breast cancer or cancer-free follow-up within 24 months. Coprimary endpoints were sensitivity and specificity, and secondary endpoints were positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), recall rate, and arbitration rate. Accuracy estimates were calculated using McNemar's test or exact binomial test.

RESULTS

Out of 272,008 screening mammograms from 158,732 women, 257,671 (94.7%) with adequate image data were included in the final analyses. Sensitivity and specificity were 63.7% (95% CI 61.6%-65.8%) and 97.8% (97.7-97.8%) for first reader, and 73.9% (72.0-75.8%) and 97.9% (97.9-98.0%) for combined reading, respectively. Standalone AIsens showed a lower specificity (-1.3%) and PPV (-6.1%), and a higher recall rate (+ 1.3%) compared to first reader (p < 0.0001 for all), while Standalone AIspec had a lower sensitivity (-5.1%; p < 0.0001), PPV (-1.3%; p = 0.01) and NPV (-0.04%; p = 0.0002). Compared to combined reading, Integrated AIsens achieved higher sensitivity (+ 2.3%; p = 0.0004), but lower specificity (-0.6%) and PPV (-3.9%) as well as higher recall rate (+ 0.6%) and arbitration rate (+ 2.2%; p < 0.0001 for all). Integrated AIspec showed no significant difference in any outcome measures apart from a slightly higher arbitration rate (p < 0.0001). Subgroup analyses showed higher detection of interval cancers by Standalone AI and Integrated AI at both thresholds (p < 0.0001 for all) with a varying composition of detected cancers across multiple subgroups of tumour characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Replacing first reader in double reading with an AI could be feasible but choosing an appropriate AI threshold is crucial to maintaining cancer detection accuracy and workload.

Population-wide evaluation of artificial intelligence and radiologist assessment of screening mammograms

OBJECTIVES

To validate an AI system for standalone breast cancer detection on an entire screening population in comparison to first-reading breast radiologists.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All mammography screenings performed between August 4, 2014, and August 15, 2018, in the Region of Southern Denmark with follow-up within 24 months were eligible. Screenings were assessed as normal or abnormal by breast radiologists through double reading with arbitration. For an AI decision of normal or abnormal, two AI-score cut-off points were applied by matching at mean sensitivity (AIsens) and specificity (AIspec) of first readers. Accuracy measures were sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and recall rate (RR).

RESULTS

The sample included 249,402 screenings (149,495 women) and 2033 breast cancers (72.6% screen-detected cancers, 27.4% interval cancers). AIsens had lower specificity (97.5% vs 97.7%; p < 0.0001) and PPV (17.5% vs 18.7%; p = 0.01) and a higher RR (3.0% vs 2.8%; p < 0.0001) than first readers. AIspec was comparable to first readers in terms of all accuracy measures. Both AIsens and AIspec detected significantly fewer screen-detected cancers (1166 (AIsens), 1156 (AIspec) vs 1252; p < 0.0001) but found more interval cancers compared to first readers (126 (AIsens), 117 (AIspec) vs 39; p < 0.0001) with varying types of cancers detected across multiple subgroups.

CONCLUSION

Standalone AI can detect breast cancer at an accuracy level equivalent to the standard of first readers when the AI threshold point was matched at first reader specificity. However, AI and first readers detected a different composition of cancers.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

Replacing first readers with AI with an appropriate cut-off score could be feasible. AI-detected cancers not detected by radiologists suggest a potential increase in the number of cancers detected if AI is implemented to support double reading within screening, although the clinicopathological characteristics of detected cancers would not change significantly.

KEY POINTS

• Standalone AI cancer detection was compared to first readers in a double-read mammography screening population. • Standalone AI matched at first reader specificity showed no statistically significant difference in overall accuracy but detected different cancers. • With an appropriate threshold, AI-integrated screening can increase the number of detected cancers with similar clinicopathological characteristics.

Automatic correction of performance drift under acquisition shift in medical image classification

Image-based prediction models for disease detection are sensitive to changes in data acquisition such as the replacement of scanner hardware or updates to the image processing software. The resulting differences in image characteristics may lead to drifts in clinically relevant performance metrics which could cause harm in clinical decision making, even for models that generalise in terms of area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve. We propose Unsupervised Prediction Alignment, a generic automatic recalibration method that requires no ground truth annotations and only limited amounts of unlabelled example images from the shifted data distribution. We illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed method to detect and correct performance drift in mammography-based breast cancer screening and on publicly available histopathology data. We show that the proposed method can preserve the expected performance in terms of sensitivity/specificity under various realistic scenarios of image acquisition shift, thus offering an important safeguard for clinical deployment.

Future of Breast Radiology

The landscape of breast imaging has transformed significantly since mammography's introduction in the 1960s, accelerated by ultrasound and imageguided biopsies in the 1990s. The emergence of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the 2000s added a valuable dimension to advanced imaging. Multimodality and multiparametric imaging have firmly established breast radiology's pivotal role in managing breast disorders. A shift from conventional to digital radiology emerged in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, enabling advanced techniques like digital breast tomosynthesis, contrast-enhanced mammography, and artificial intelligence (AI) integration. AI's impending integration into breast radiology may enhance diagnostics and workflows. It involves computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) algorithms, workflow support algorithms, and data processing algorithms. CAD systems, developed since the 1980s, optimize cancer detection rates by addressing false positives and negatives. Radiologists' roles will evolve into specialized clinicians collaborating with AI for efficient patient care and utilizing advanced techniques with multiparametric imaging and radiomics. Wearable technologies, non-contrast MRI, and innovative modalities like photoacoustic imaging show potential to enhance diagnostics. Imaging-guided therapy, notably cryotherapy, and theranostics, gains traction. Theranostics, integrating therapy and diagnostics, holds potential for precise treatment. Advanced imaging, AI, and novel therapies will revolutionize breast radiology, offering refined diagnostics and personalized treatments. Personalized screening, AI's role, and imaging-guided therapies will shape the future of breast radiology.

Effect of artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis on the screening outcomes of digital mammography: a matched cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) can improve radiologists' performance when used to support radiologists' interpretation of digital mammography (DM) in breast cancer screening.

METHODS

A retrospective database search identified 3158 asymptomatic Korean women who consecutively underwent screening DM between January and December 2019 without AI-CAD support, and screening DM between February and July 2020 with image interpretation aided by AI-CAD in a tertiary referral hospital using single reading. Propensity score matching was used to match the DM with AI-CAD group in a 1:1 ratio with the DM without AI-CAD group according to age, breast density, experience level of the interpreting radiologist, and screening round. Performance measures were compared with the McNemar test and generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

A total of 1579 women who underwent DM with AI-CAD were matched with 1579 women who underwent DM without AI-CAD. Radiologists showed higher specificity (96% [1500 of 1563] vs 91.6% [1430 of 1561]; p < 0.001) and lower abnormal interpretation rates (AIR) (4.9% [77 of 1579] vs 9.2% [145 of 1579]; p < 0.001) with AI-CAD than without. There was no significant difference in the cancer detection rate (CDR) (AI-CAD vs no AI-CAD, 8.9 vs 8.9 per 1000 examinations; p = 0.999), sensitivity (87.5% vs 77.8%; p = 0.999), and positive predictive value for biopsy (PPV3) (35.0% vs 35.0%; p = 0.999) according to AI-CAD support.

CONCLUSIONS

AI-CAD increases the specificity for radiologists without decreasing sensitivity as a supportive tool in the single reading of DM for breast cancer screening.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

This study shows that AI-CAD could improve the specificity of radiologists' DM interpretation in the single reading system without decreasing sensitivity, suggesting that it can benefit patients by reducing false positive and recall rates.

KEY POINTS

• In this retrospective-matched cohort study (DM without AI-CAD vs DM with AI-CAD), radiologists showed higher specificity and lower AIR when AI-CAD was used to support decision-making in DM screening. • CDR, sensitivity, and PPV for biopsy did not differ with and without AI-CAD support.

Overview of trials on artificial intelligence algorithms in breast cancer screening - A roadmap for international evaluation and implementation

Accumulating evidence from retrospective studies demonstrate at least non-inferior performance when using AI algorithms with different strategies versus double-reading in mammography screening. In addition, AI algorithms for mammography screening can reduce work load by moving to single human reading. Prospective trials are essential to avoid unintended adverse consequences before incorporation of AI algorithms into UK's National Health Service (NHS) Breast Screening Programme (BSP). A stakeholders' meeting was organized in Newnham College, Cambridge, UK to undertake a review of the current evidence to enable consensus discussion on next steps required before implementation into a screening programme. It was concluded that a multicentre multivendor testing platform study with opt-out consent is preferred. AI thresholds from different vendors should be determined while maintaining non-inferior screening performance results, particularly ensuring recall rates are not increased. Automatic recall of cases using an agreed high sensitivity AI score versus automatic rule out with a low AI score set at a high sensitivity could be used. A human reader should still be involved in decision making with AI-only recalls requiring human arbitration. Standalone AI algorithms used without prompting maintain unbiased screening reading performance, but reading with prompts should be tested prospectively and ideally provided for arbitration.

Optimizing the Pairs of Radiologists That Double Read Screening Mammograms

Background Despite variation in performance characteristics among radiologists, the pairing of radiologists for the double reading of screening mammograms is performed randomly. It is unknown how to optimize pairing to improve screening performance. Purpose To investigate whether radiologist performance characteristics can be used to determine the optimal set of pairs of radiologists to double read screening mammograms for improved accuracy. Materials and Methods This retrospective study was performed with reading outcomes from breast cancer screening programs in Sweden (2008-2015), England (2012-2014), and Norway (2004-2018). Cancer detection rates (CDRs) and abnormal interpretation rates (AIRs) were calculated, with AIR defined as either reader flagging an examination as abnormal. Individual readers were divided into performance categories based on their high and low CDR and AIR. The performance of individuals determined the classification of pairs. Random pair performance, for which any type of pair was equally represented, was compared with the performance of specific pairing strategies, which consisted of pairs of readers who were either opposite or similar in AIR and/or CDR. Results Based on a minimum number of examinations per reader and per pair, the final study sample consisted of 3 592 414 examinations (Sweden, n = 965 263; England, n = 837 048; Norway, n = 1 790 103). The overall AIRs and CDRs for all specific pairing strategies (Sweden AIR range, 45.5-56.9 per 1000 examinations and CDR range, 3.1-3.6 per 1000; England AIR range, 68.2-70.5 per 1000 and CDR range, 8.9-9.4 per 1000; Norway AIR range, 81.6-88.1 per 1000 and CDR range, 6.1-6.8 per 1000) were not significantly different from the random pairing strategy (Sweden AIR, 54.1 per 1000 examinations and CDR, 3.3 per 1000; England AIR, 69.3 per 1000 and CDR, 9.1 per 1000; Norway AIR, 84.1 per 1000 and CDR, 6.3 per 1000). Conclusion Pairing a set of readers based on different pairing strategies did not show a significant difference in screening performance when compared with random pairing. © RSNA, 2023.

AI Risk Score on Screening Mammograms Preceding Breast Cancer Diagnosis

Background Few studies have evaluated the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in prior screening mammography. Purpose To examine AI risk scores assigned to screening mammography in women who were later diagnosed with breast cancer. Materials and Methods Image data and screening information of examinations performed from January 2004 to December 2019 as part of BreastScreen Norway were used in this retrospective study. Prior screening examinations from women who were later diagnosed with cancer were assigned an AI risk score by a commercially available AI system (scores of 1-7, low risk of malignancy; 8-9, intermediate risk; and 10, high risk of malignancy). Mammographic features of the cancers based on the AI score were also assessed. The association between AI score and mammographic features was tested with a bivariate test. Results A total of 2787 prior screening examinations from 1602 women (mean age, 59 years ± 5.1 [SD]) with screen-detected (n = 1016) or interval (n = 586) cancers showed an AI risk score of 10 for 389 (38.3%) and 231 (39.4%) cancers, respectively, on the mammograms in the screening round prior to diagnosis. Among the screen-detected cancers with AI scores available two screening rounds (4 years) before diagnosis, 23.0% (122 of 531) had a score of 10. Mammographic features were associated with AI score for invasive screen-detected cancers (P < .001). Density with calcifications was registered for 13.6% (43 of 317) of screen-detected cases with a score of 10 and 4.6% (15 of 322) for those with a score of 1-7. Conclusion More than one in three cases of screen-detected and interval cancers had the highest AI risk score at prior screening, suggesting that the use of AI in mammography screening may lead to earlier detection of breast cancers. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Mehta in this issue.

Breast Cancer Screening Using a Modified Inertial Projective Algorithms for Split Feasibility Problems

To detect breast cancer in mammography screening practice, we modify the inertial relaxed CQ algorithm with Mann's iteration for solving split feasibility problems in real Hilbert spaces to apply in an extreme learning machine as an optimizer. Weak convergence of the proposed algorithm is proved under certain mild conditions. Moreover, we present the advantage of our algorithm by comparing it with existing machine learning methods. The highest performance value of 85.03% accuracy, 82.56% precision, 87.65% recall, and 85.03% F1-score show that our algorithm performs better than the other machine learning models.

Artificial intelligence-supported screen reading versus standard double reading in the Mammography Screening with Artificial Intelligence trial (MASAI): a clinical safety analysis of a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority, single-blinded, screening accuracy study

BACKGROUND

Retrospective studies have shown promising results using artificial intelligence (AI) to improve mammography screening accuracy and reduce screen-reading workload; however, to our knowledge, a randomised trial has not yet been conducted. We aimed to assess the clinical safety of an AI-supported screen-reading protocol compared with standard screen reading by radiologists following mammography.

METHODS

In this randomised, controlled, population-based trial, women aged 40-80 years eligible for mammography screening (including general screening with 1·5-2-year intervals and annual screening for those with moderate hereditary risk of breast cancer or a history of breast cancer) at four screening sites in Sweden were informed about the study as part of the screening invitation. Those who did not opt out were randomly allocated (1:1) to AI-supported screening (intervention group) or standard double reading without AI (control group). Screening examinations were automatically randomised by the Picture Archive and Communications System with a pseudo-random number generator after image acquisition. The participants and the radiographers acquiring the screening examinations, but not the radiologists reading the screening examinations, were masked to study group allocation. The AI system (Transpara version 1.7.0) provided an examination-based malignancy risk score on a 10-level scale that was used to triage screening examinations to single reading (score 1-9) or double reading (score 10), with AI risk scores (for all examinations) and computer-aided detection marks (for examinations with risk score 8-10) available to the radiologists doing the screen reading. Here we report the prespecified clinical safety analysis, to be done after 80 000 women were enrolled, to assess the secondary outcome measures of early screening performance (cancer detection rate, recall rate, false positive rate, positive predictive value [PPV] of recall, and type of cancer detected [invasive or in situ]) and screen-reading workload. Analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat population (ie, all women randomly assigned to a group with one complete screening examination, excluding women recalled due to enlarged lymph nodes diagnosed with lymphoma). The lowest acceptable limit for safety in the intervention group was a cancer detection rate of more than 3 per 1000 participants screened. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04838756, and is closed to accrual; follow-up is ongoing to assess the primary endpoint of the trial, interval cancer rate.

FINDINGS

Between April 12, 2021, and July 28, 2022, 80 033 women were randomly assigned to AI-supported screening (n=40 003) or double reading without AI (n=40 030). 13 women were excluded from the analysis. The median age was 54·0 years (IQR 46·7-63·9). Race and ethnicity data were not collected. AI-supported screening among 39 996 participants resulted in 244 screen-detected cancers, 861 recalls, and a total of 46 345 screen readings. Standard screening among 40 024 participants resulted in 203 screen-detected cancers, 817 recalls, and a total of 83 231 screen readings. Cancer detection rates were 6·1 (95% CI 5·4-6·9) per 1000 screened participants in the intervention group, above the lowest acceptable limit for safety, and 5·1 (4·4-5·8) per 1000 in the control group-a ratio of 1·2 (95% CI 1·0-1·5; p=0·052). Recall rates were 2·2% (95% CI 2·0-2·3) in the intervention group and 2·0% (1·9-2·2) in the control group. The false positive rate was 1·5% (95% CI 1·4-1·7) in both groups. The PPV of recall was 28·3% (95% CI 25·3-31·5) in the intervention group and 24·8% (21·9-28·0) in the control group. In the intervention group, 184 (75%) of 244 cancers detected were invasive and 60 (25%) were in situ; in the control group, 165 (81%) of 203 cancers were invasive and 38 (19%) were in situ. The screen-reading workload was reduced by 44·3% using AI.

INTERPRETATION

AI-supported mammography screening resulted in a similar cancer detection rate compared with standard double reading, with a substantially lower screen-reading workload, indicating that the use of AI in mammography screening is safe. The trial was thus not halted and the primary endpoint of interval cancer rate will be assessed in 100 000 enrolled participants after 2-years of follow up.

FUNDING

Swedish Cancer Society, Confederation of Regional Cancer Centres, and the Swedish governmental funding for clinical research (ALF).

Screening outcome for interpretation by the first and second reader in a population-based mammographic screening program with independent double reading

BACKGROUND

Double reading of screening mammograms is associated with a higher rate of screen-detected cancer than single reading, but different strategies exist regarding reader pairing and blinding. Knowledge about these aspects is important when considering strategies for future use of artificial intelligence in mammographic screening.

PURPOSE

To investigate screening outcome, histopathological tumor characteristics, and mammographic features stratified by the first and the second reader in a population based screening program for breast cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study sample consisted of data from 3,499,048 screening examinations from 834,691 women performed during 1996-2018 in BreastScreen Norway. All examinations were interpreted independently by two radiologists, 272 in total. We analyzed interpretation score, recall, and cancer detection, as well as histopathological tumor characteristics and mammographic features of the cancers, stratified by the first and second readers.

RESULTS

For Reader 1, the rate of positive interpretations was 4.8%, recall 2.3%, and cancer detection 0.5%. The corresponding percentages for Reader 2 were 4.9%, 2.5%, and 0.5% (P < 0.05 compared with Reader 1). No statistical difference was observed for histopathological tumor characteristics or mammographic features when stratified by Readers 1 and 2. Recall and cancer detection were statistically higher and histopathological tumor characteristics less favorable for cases detected after concordant positive compared with discordant interpretations.

CONCLUSION

Despite reaching statistical significance, mainly due to the large study sample, we consider the differences in interpretation scores, recall, and cancer detection between the first and second readers to be clinically negligible. For practical and clinical purposes, double reading in BreastScreen Norway is independent.

Comparing Prognostic Factors of Cancers Identified by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Human Readers in Breast Cancer Screening

Invasiveness status, histological grade, lymph node stage, and tumour size are important prognostic factors for breast cancer survival. This evaluation aims to compare these features for cancers detected by AI and human readers using digital mammography. Women diagnosed with breast cancer between 2009 and 2019 from three UK double-reading sites were included in this retrospective cohort evaluation. Differences in prognostic features of cancers detected by AI and the first human reader (R1) were assessed using chi-square tests, with significance at p < 0.05. From 1718 screen-detected cancers (SDCs) and 293 interval cancers (ICs), AI flagged 85.9% and 31.7%, respectively. R1 detected 90.8% of SDCs and 7.2% of ICs. Of the screen-detected cancers detected by the AI, 82.5% had an invasive component, compared to 81.1% for R1 (p-0.374). For the ICs, this was 91.5% and 93.8% for AI and R1, respectively (p = 0.829). For the invasive tumours, no differences were found for histological grade, tumour size, or lymph node stage. The AI detected more ICs. In summary, no differences in prognostic factors were found comparing SDC and ICs identified by AI or human readers. These findings support a potential role for AI in the double-reading workflow.

Multi-vendor evaluation of artificial intelligence as an independent reader for double reading in breast cancer screening on 275,900 mammograms

BACKGROUND

Double reading (DR) in screening mammography increases cancer detection and lowers recall rates, but has sustainability challenges due to workforce shortages. Artificial intelligence (AI) as an independent reader (IR) in DR may provide a cost-effective solution with the potential to improve screening performance. Evidence for AI to generalise across different patient populations, screening programmes and equipment vendors, however, is still lacking.

METHODS

This retrospective study simulated DR with AI as an IR, using data representative of real-world deployments (275,900 cases, 177,882 participants) from four mammography equipment vendors, seven screening sites, and two countries. Non-inferiority and superiority were assessed for relevant screening metrics.

RESULTS

DR with AI, compared with human DR, showed at least non-inferior recall rate, cancer detection rate, sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) for each mammography vendor and site, and superior recall rate, specificity, and PPV for some. The simulation indicates that using AI would have increased arbitration rate (3.3% to 12.3%), but could have reduced human workload by 30.0% to 44.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

AI has potential as an IR in the DR workflow across different screening programmes, mammography equipment and geographies, substantially reducing human reader workload while maintaining or improving standard of care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN18056078 (20/03/2019; retrospectively registered).

The Approach of Artificial Intelligence in Neuroendocrine Carcinomas of the Breast: A Next Step towards Precision Pathology?—A Case Report and Review of the Literature

Primary neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) of the breast are considered a rare and undervalued subtype of breast carcinoma that occur mainly in postmenopausal women and are graded as G1 or G2 NETs or an invasive neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) (small cell or large cell). To establish a final diagnosis of breast carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation, it is essential to perform an immunohistochemical profile of the tumor, using antibodies against synaptophysin or chromogranin, as well as the MIB-1 proliferation index, one of the most controversial markers in breast pathology regarding its methodology in current clinical practice. A standardization error between institutions and pathologists regarding the evaluation of the MIB-1 proliferation index is present. Another challenge refers to the counting process of MIB-1′s expressiveness, which is known as a time-consuming process. The involvement of AI (artificial intelligence) automated systems could be a solution for diagnosing early stages, as well. We present the case of a post-menopausal 79-year-old woman diagnosed with primary neuroendocrine carcinoma of the breast (NECB). The purpose of this paper is to expose the interpretation of MIB-1 expression in our patient’ s case of breast neuroendocrine carcinoma, assisted by artificial intelligence (AI) software (HALO—IndicaLabs), and to analyze the associations between MIB-1 and common histopathological parameters.

Artificial intelligence (AI) for breast cancer screening: BreastScreen population-based cohort study of cancer detection

BACKGROUND

Artificial intelligence (AI) has been proposed to reduce false-positive screens, increase cancer detection rates (CDRs), and address resourcing challenges faced by breast screening programs. We compared the accuracy of AI versus radiologists in real-world population breast cancer screening, and estimated potential impacts on CDR, recall and workload for simulated AI-radiologist reading.

METHODS

External validation of a commercially-available AI algorithm in a retrospective cohort of 108,970 consecutive mammograms from a population-based screening program, with ascertained outcomes (including interval cancers by registry linkage). Area under the ROC curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity for AI were compared with radiologists who interpreted the screens in practice. CDR and recall were estimated for simulated AI-radiologist reading (with arbitration) and compared with program metrics.

FINDINGS

The AUC for AI was 0.83 compared with 0.93 for radiologists. At a prospective threshold, sensitivity for AI (0.67; 95% CI: 0.64-0.70) was comparable to radiologists (0.68; 95% CI: 0.66-0.71) with lower specificity (0.81 [95% CI: 0.81-0.81] versus 0.97 [95% CI: 0.97-0.97]). Recall rate for AI-radiologist reading (3.14%) was significantly lower than for the BSWA program (3.38%) (-0.25%; 95% CI: -0.31 to -0.18; P < 0.001). CDR was also lower (6.37 versus 6.97 per 1000) (-0.61; 95% CI: -0.77 to -0.44; P < 0.001); however, AI detected interval cancers that were not found by radiologists (0.72 per 1000; 95% CI: 0.57-0.90). AI-radiologist reading increased arbitration but decreased overall screen-reading volume by 41.4% (95% CI: 41.2-41.6).

INTERPRETATION

Replacement of one radiologist by AI (with arbitration) resulted in lower recall and overall screen-reading volume. There was a small reduction in CDR for AI-radiologist reading. AI detected interval cases that were not identified by radiologists, suggesting potentially higher CDR if radiologists were unblinded to AI findings. These results indicate AI's potential role as a screen-reader of mammograms, but prospective trials are required to determine whether CDR could improve if AI detection was actioned in double-reading with arbitration.

FUNDING

National Breast Cancer Foundation (NBCF), National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).

Artificial intelligence for digital breast tomosynthesis: Impact on diagnostic performance, reading times, and workload in the era of personalized screening

The ultimate goals of the application of artificial intelligence (AI) to digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) are the reduction of reading times, the increase of diagnostic performance, and the reduction of interval cancer rates. In this review, after outlining the journey from computer-aided detection/diagnosis systems to AI applied to digital mammography (DM), we summarize the results of studies where AI was applied to DBT, noting that long-term advantages of DBT screening and its crucial ability to decrease the interval cancer rate are still under scrutiny. AI has shown the capability to overcome some shortcomings of DBT in the screening setting by improving diagnostic performance and by reducing recall rates (from -2 % to -27 %) and reading times (up to -53 %, with an average 20 % reduction), but the ability of AI to reduce interval cancer rates has not yet been clearly investigated. Prospective validation is needed to assess the cost-effectiveness and real-world impact of AI models assisting DBT interpretation, especially in large-scale studies with low breast cancer prevalence. Finally, we focus on the incoming era of personalized and risk-stratified screening that will first see the application of contrast-enhanced breast imaging to screen women with extremely dense breasts. As the diagnostic advantage of DBT over DM was concentrated in this category, we try to understand if the application of AI to DM in the remaining cohorts of women with heterogeneously dense or non-dense breast could close the gap in diagnostic performance between DM and DBT, thus neutralizing the usefulness of AI application to DBT.