Using Single-View Wide-Angle DBT with AI for Breast Cancer Screening

Comparisons between artificial intelligence computer-aided detection synthesized mammograms and digital mammograms when used alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images in a virtual screening setting

PURPOSE

To compare the reader performance of artificial intelligence computer-aided detection synthesized mammograms (AI CAD SM) with that of digital mammograms (DM) when used alone or in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) images.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective multireader (n = 4) study compared the reader performances in 388 cases (84 cancer, 83 benign, and 221 normal or benign cases). The overall accuracy of the breast-based assessment was determined by four radiologists using two sequential reading modes: DM followed by DM + DBT; and AI CAD SM followed by AI CAD SM + DBT. Each breast was rated by each reader using five-category ratings, where 3 or higher was considered positive. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) and reading time were evaluated.

RESULTS

The mean AUC values for DM, AI CAD SM, DM + DBT, and AI CAD SM + DBT were 0.863, 0.895, 0.886, and 0.902, respectively. The mean AUC of AI CAD SM was significantly higher (P < 0.0001) than that of DM. The mean AUC of AI CAD SM + DBT was higher than that of DM + DBT (P = 0.094). A significant reduction in the reading time was observed after using AI CAD SM + DBT when compared with that after using DM + DBT (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

AI CAD SM + DBT might prove more effective than DM + DBT in a screening setting because of its lower radiation dose, noninferiority, and shorter reading time compared to DM + DBT.

Artificial intelligence computer-aided detection enhances synthesized mammograms: comparison with original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images in an experimental setting

BACKGROUND

It remains unclear whether original full-field digital mammograms (DMs) can be replaced with synthesized mammograms in both screening and diagnostic settings. To compare reader performance of artificial intelligence computer-aided detection synthesized mammograms (AI CAD SMs) with that of DM alone or in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) images in an experimental setting.

METHODS

We compared the performance of multireader (n = 4) and reading multicase (n = 388), in 84 cancers, 83 biopsy-proven benign lesions, and 221 normal or benign cases with negative results after 1-year follow-up. Each reading was independently interpreted with four reading modes: DM, AI CAD SM, DM + DBT, and AI CAD SM + DBT. The accuracy of probability of malignancy (POM) and five-category ratings were evaluated using areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) in the random-reader analysis.

RESULTS

The mean AUC values based on POM for DM, AI CAD SM, DM + DBT, and AI CAD SM + DBT were 0.871, 0.902, 0.895, and 0.909, respectively. The mean AUC of AI CAD SM was significantly higher (P = 0.002) than that of DM. For calcification lesions, the sensitivity of SM and DM did not differ significantly (P = 0.204). The mean AUC for AI CAD SM + DBT was higher than that of DM + DBT (P = 0.082). ROC curves based on the five-category ratings showed similar proximity of the overall performance levels.

CONCLUSIONS

AI CAD SM alone was superior to DM alone. Also, AI CAD SM + DBT was superior to DM + DBT but not statistically significant.