Screening Outcomes of Mammography with AI in Dense Breasts: A Comparative Study with Supplemental Screening US

被引:5
作者
Ha, Su Min [1 ,3 ,4 ]
Jang, Myoung-jin [2 ]
Youn, Inyoung [5 ]
Yoen, Heera [1 ]
Ji, Hye
Lee, Su Hyun [1 ,3 ]
Yi, Ann [6 ]
Chang, Jung Min [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Seoul Natl Univ Hosp, Dept Radiol, 101 Daehak Ro, Seoul 03080, South Korea
[2] Seoul Natl Univ Hosp, Med Res Collaborating Ctr, 101 Daehak Ro, Seoul 03080, South Korea
[3] Seoul Natl Univ, Coll Med, Dept Radiol, Seoul, South Korea
[4] Seoul Natl Univ, Med Res Ctr, Inst Radiat Med, Seoul, South Korea
[5] Sungkyunkwan Univ, Sch Med, Kangbuk Samsung Hosp, Dept Radiol, Seoul, South Korea
[6] Seoul Natl Univ Hosp, Healthcare Syst Gangnam Ctr, Dept Radiol, Seoul, South Korea
关键词
ARTIFICIAL-INTELLIGENCE; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; CANCER; WOMEN; PERFORMANCE; INTERVAL;
D O I
10.1148/radiol.233391
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Background: Comparative performance between artificial intelligence (AI) and breast US for women with dense breasts undergoing screening mammography remains unclear. Purpose: To compare the performance of mammography alone, mammography with AI, and mammography plus supplemental US for screening women with dense breasts, and to investigate the characteristics of the detected cancers. Materials and Methods: A retrospective database search identified consecutive asymptomatic women (>= 40 years of age) with dense breasts who underwent mammography plus supplemental whole-breast handheld US from January 2017 to December 2018 at a primary health care center. Sequential reading for mammography alone and mammography with the aid of an AI system was conducted by five breast radiologists, and their recall decisions were recorded. Results of the combined mammography and US examinations were collected from the database. A dedicated breast radiologist reviewed marks for mammography alone or with AI to confirm lesion identification. The reference standard was histologic examination and 1-year follow-up data. The cancer detection rate (CDR) per 1000 screening examinations, sensitivity, specificity, and abnormal interpretation rate (AIR) of mammography alone, mammography with AI, and mammography plus US were compared. Results: Among 5707 asymptomatic women (mean age, 52.4 years +/- 7.9 [SD]), 33 (0.6%) had cancer (median lesion size, 0.7 cm). Mammography with AI had a higher specificity (95.3% [95% CI: 94.7, 95.8], P = .003) and lower AIR (5.0% [95% CI: 4.5, 5.6], P = .004) than mammography alone (94.3% [95% CI: 93.6, 94.8] and 6.0% [95% CI: 5.4, 6.7], respectively). Mammography plus US had a higher CDR (5.6 vs 3.5 per 1000 examinations, P = .002) and sensitivity (97.0% vs 60.6%, P = .002) but lower specificity (77.6% vs 95.3%, P < .001) and higher AIR (22.9% vs 5.0%, P < .001) than mammography with AI. Supplemental US alone helped detect 12 cancers, mostly stage 0 and I (92%, 11 of 12). Conclusion: Although AI improved the specificity of mammography interpretation, mammography plus supplemental US helped detect more node-negative early breast cancers that were undetected using mammography with AI.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 28 条
[1]   Ultrasound as the Primary Screening Test for Breast Cancer: Analysis From ACRIN 6666 [J].
Berg, Wendie A. ;
Bandos, Andriy I. ;
Mendelson, Ellen B. ;
Lehrer, Daniel ;
Jong, Roberta A. ;
Pisano, Etta D. .
JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2016, 108 (04)
[2]  
Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, BREAST CANC SURVEILL
[3]   Evidence of the effect of adjunct ultrasound screening in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: Interval breast cancers at 1 year follow-up [J].
Corsetti, Vittorio ;
Houssami, Nehmat ;
Ghirardi, Marco ;
Ferrari, Aurora ;
Speziani, Michela ;
Bellarosa, Sergio ;
Remida, Giuseppe ;
Gasparotti, Cristina ;
Galligioni, Enzo ;
Ciatto, Stefano .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2011, 47 (07) :1021-1026
[4]  
Dembrower K, 2020, LANCET DIGIT HEALTH, V2, pE468, DOI 10.1016/S2589-7500(20)30185-0
[5]  
DOrsi CJ., 2013, ACR BIRADS Atlas: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System
[6]   Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography [J].
Fenton, Joshua J. ;
Taplin, Stephen H. ;
Carney, Patricia A. ;
Abraham, Linn ;
Sickles, Edward A. ;
D'Orsi, Carl ;
Berns, Eric A. ;
Cutter, Gary ;
Hendrick, R. Edward ;
Barlow, William E. ;
Elmore, Joann G. .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2007, 356 (14) :1399-1409
[7]   Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Plus Ultrasound Versus Digital Mammography Plus Ultrasound for Screening Breast Cancer in Women With Dense Breasts [J].
Ha, Su Min ;
Yi, Ann ;
Yim, Dahae ;
Jang, Myoung-jin ;
Kwon, Bo Ra ;
Shin, Sung Ui ;
Lee, Eun Jae ;
Lee, Soo Hyun ;
Moon, Woo Kyung ;
Chang, Jung Min .
KOREAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2023, 24 (04) :274-283
[8]  
Hickman SE, 2023, RADIOLOGY, V309, DOI 10.1148/radiol.231173
[9]   Breast Cancer: Missed Interval and Screening-detected Cancer at Full-Field Digital Mammography and Screen-Film Mammography-Results from a Retrospective Review [J].
Hoff, Solveig R. ;
Abrahamsen, Anne-Line ;
Samset, Jon Helge ;
Vigeland, Einar ;
Klepp, Olbjorn ;
Hofvind, Solveig .
RADIOLOGY, 2012, 264 (02) :378-386
[10]   Artificial intelligence for breast cancer screening: Opportunity or hype? [J].
Houssami, Nehmat ;
Lee, Christoph I. ;
Buist, Diana S. M. ;
Tao, Dacheng .
BREAST, 2017, 36 :31-33