Impact of AI for Digital Breast Tomosynthesis on Breast Cancer Detection and Interpretation Time

被引:4
|
作者
Park, Eun Kyung [1 ]
Kwak, SooYoung [1 ]
Lee, Weonsuk [1 ]
Choi, Joon Suk [1 ]
Kooi, Thijs [1 ]
Kim, Eun-Kyung [2 ]
机构
[1] Lunit, 374 Gangnam Daero, Seoul 06241, South Korea
[2] Yonsei Univ, Yongin Severance Hosp, Dept Radiol, Coll Med, Yongin, South Korea
关键词
COMPUTER-AIDED DETECTION; ARTIFICIAL-INTELLIGENCE; SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY; OUTCOMES; PERFORMANCE; ACCURACY; EUROPE;
D O I
10.1148/ryai.230318
中图分类号
TP18 [人工智能理论];
学科分类号
081104 ; 0812 ; 0835 ; 1405 ;
摘要
Purpose: To develop an artificial intelligence (AI) model for the diagnosis of breast cancer on digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) images and to investigate whether it could improve diagnostic accuracy and reduce radiologist reading time. Materials and Methods: A deep learning AI algorithm was developed and validated for DBT with retrospectively collected examinations (January 2010 to December 2021) from 14 institutions in the United States and South Korea. A multicenter reader study was performed to compare the performance of 15 radiologists (seven breast specialists, eight general radiologists) in interpreting DBT examinations in 258 women (mean age, 56 years +/- 13.41 [SD]), including 65 cancer cases, with and without the use of AI. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and reading time were evaluated. Results: The AUC for stand-alone AI performance was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.92, 0.94). With AI, radiologists' AUC improved from 0.90 (95% CI: 0.86, 0.93) to 0.92 (95% CI: 0.88, 0.96) (P = .003) in the reader study. AI showed higher specificity (89.64% [95% CI: 85.34%, 93.94%]) than radiologists (77.34% [95% CI: 75.82%, 78.87%]) (P < .001). When reading with AI, radiologists' sensitivity increased from 85.44% (95% CI: 83.22%, 87.65%) to 87.69% (95% CI: 85.63%, 89.75%) (P = .04), with no evidence of a difference in specificity. Reading time decreased from 54.41 seconds (95% CI: 52.56, 56.27) without AI to 48.52 seconds (95% CI: 46.79, 50.25) with AI (P < .001). Interreader agreement measured by Fleiss kappa increased from 0.59 to 0.62. Conclusion: The AI model showed better diagnostic accuracy than radiologists in breast cancer detection, as well as reduced reading times. The concurrent use of AI in DBT interpretation could improve both accuracy and efficiency.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer diagnosis in women with dense breasts and additional breast cancer risk factors: A systematic review
    Raichand, Smriti
    Blaya-Novakova, Vendula
    Berber, Slavica
    Livingstone, Ann
    Noguchi, Naomi
    Houssami, Nehmat
    BREAST, 2024, 77
  • [42] Digital Mammography versus Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis in Breast Cancer Screening: The Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial
    Skaane, Per
    Bandos, Andriy L.
    Niklason, Loren T.
    Sebuodegard, Sofie
    Osteras, Bjorn H.
    Gullien, Randi
    Gur, David
    Hofvind, Solveig
    RADIOLOGY, 2019, 291 (01) : 22 - 29
  • [43] Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: an Overview
    Dhamija, Ekta
    Gulati, Malvika
    Deo, S. V. S.
    Gogia, Ajay
    Hari, Smriti
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2021, 12 (02) : 315 - 329
  • [44] Artifacts in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis
    Geiser, William R.
    Einstein, Samuel A.
    Yang, Wei-Tse
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2018, 211 (04) : 926 - 932
  • [45] Digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer detection: a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis
    Alabousi, Mostafa
    Zha, Nanxi
    Salameh, Jean-Paul
    Samoilov, Lucy
    Sharifabadi, Anahita Dehmoobad
    Pozdnyakov, Alex
    Sadeghirad, Behnam
    Freitas, Vivianne
    McInnes, Matthew D. F.
    Alabousi, Abdullah
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2020, 30 (04) : 2058 - 2071
  • [46] Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis
    Moseley, Tanya W.
    CLINICAL OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2016, 59 (02) : 362 - 379
  • [47] Effect of Dose Level on Radiologists' Detection of Microcalcifications in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: An Observer Study with Breast Phantoms
    Chan, Heang-Ping
    Helvie, Mark A.
    Klein, Katherine A.
    McLaughlin, Carol
    Neal, Colleen H.
    Oudsema, Rebecca
    Rahman, W. Tania
    Roubidoux, Marilyn A.
    Hadjiiski, Lubomir M.
    Zhou, Chuan
    Samala, Ravi K.
    ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2022, 29 : S42 - S49
  • [48] Multiloss strategy for breast cancer subtype classification using digital breast tomosynthesis
    Guo, Wei
    Li, Xiaomin
    Gong, Zhaoxuan
    Zhang, Guodong
    Jiang, Xiran
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF IMAGING SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGY, 2024, 34 (01)
  • [49] Digital Mammography versus Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Screening: The Reggio Emilia Tomosynthesis Randomized Trial
    Pattacini, Pierpaolo
    Nitrosi, Andrea
    Rossi, Paolo Giorgi
    Iotti, Valentina
    Ginocchi, Vladimiro
    Ravaioli, Sara
    Vacondio, Rita
    Braglia, Luca
    Cavuto, Silvio
    Campari, Cinzia
    RADIOLOGY, 2018, 288 (02) : 375 - 385
  • [50] A comparison of image interpretation times in Full Field Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis
    Astley, Susan
    Connor, Sophie
    Lim, Yit
    Tate, Catriona
    Entwistle, Helen
    Morris, Julie
    Whiteside, Sigrid
    Sergeant, Jamie
    Wilson, Mary
    Beetles, Ursula
    Boggis, Caroline
    Gilbert, Fiona
    MEDICAL IMAGING 2013: IMAGE PERCEPTION, OBSERVER PERFORMANCE, AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, 2013, 8673