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

被引:2
作者
Kim, Haejung [1 ,2 ]
Choi, Ji Soo [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Kim, Kyunga [3 ,4 ,5 ]
Ko, Eun Sook [1 ,2 ]
Ko, Eun Young [1 ,2 ]
Han, Boo-Kyung [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Sungkyunkwan Univ, Sch Med, Dept Radiol, 81 Irwon, Seoul 06351, South Korea
[2] Sungkyunkwan Univ, Ctr Imaging Sci, Samsung Med Ctr, Sch Med, 81 Irwon Ro, Seoul, South Korea
[3] Sungkyunkwan Univ, SAIHST, Dept Digital Hlth, Seoul, South Korea
[4] Samsung Med Ctr, Biomed Stat Ctr, Res Inst Future Med, Seoul, South Korea
[5] Sungkyunkwan Univ, Sch Med, Dept Data Convergence & Future Med, Seoul, South Korea
关键词
Breast neoplasms; Digital mammography; Artificial intelligence; Diagnosis; Computer assisted; CANCER-DETECTION; FILM MAMMOGRAPHY; BREAST; PERFORMANCE; PROGRAM; ACCURACY; SINGLE;
D O I
10.1007/s00330-023-09692-z
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
ObjectiveTo 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionsAI-CAD increases the specificity for radiologists without decreasing sensitivity as a supportive tool in the single reading of DM for breast cancer screening.
引用
收藏
页码:7186 / 7198
页数:13
相关论文
共 42 条
[31]   Implementation of Digital Mammography in a Population-based Breast Cancer Screening Program: Effect of Screening Round on Recall Rate and Cancer Detection [J].
Sala, Maria ;
Comas, Merce ;
Macia, Francesc ;
Martinez, Juan ;
Casamitjana, Montserrat ;
Castells, Xavier .
RADIOLOGY, 2009, 252 (01) :31-39
[32]   External Evaluation of 3 Commercial Artificial Intelligence Algorithms for Independent Assessment of Screening Mammograms [J].
Salim, Mattie ;
Wahlin, Erik ;
Dembrower, Karin ;
Azavedo, Edward ;
Foukakis, Theodoros ;
Liu, Yue ;
Smith, Kevin ;
Eklund, Martin ;
Strand, Fredrik .
JAMA ONCOLOGY, 2020, 6 (10) :1581-1588
[33]   Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis: A Synopsis of the European Breast Guidelines [J].
Schunemann, Holger J. ;
Lerda, Donata ;
Quinn, Cecily ;
Follmann, Markus ;
Alonso-Coello, Pablo ;
Rossi, Paolo Giorgi ;
Lebeau, Annette ;
Nystrom, Lennarth ;
Broeders, Mireille ;
Ioannidou-Mouzaka, Lydia ;
Duffy, Stephen W. ;
Borisch, Bettina ;
Fitzpatrick, Patricia ;
Hofvind, Solveig ;
Castells, Xavier ;
Giordano, Livia ;
Canelo-Aybar, Carlos ;
Warman, Sue ;
Mansel, Robert ;
Sardanelli, Francesco ;
Parmelli, Elena ;
Grawingholt, Axel ;
Saz-Parkinson, Zuleika .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2020, 172 (01) :46-+
[34]   Consensus Review of Discordant Findings Maximizes Cancer Detection Rate in Double-Reader Screening Mammography: Irish National Breast Screening Program Experience [J].
Shaw, Colette M. ;
Flanagan, Fidema L. ;
Fenlon, Helen M. ;
McNicholas, Michelle M. .
RADIOLOGY, 2009, 250 (02) :354-362
[35]  
Sickles EA, 2013, ACR BI RADS ATLAS BR, P39
[36]   Accuracy of screening mammography using single versus independent double interpretation [J].
Taplin, SH ;
Rutter, CM ;
Seger, D ;
White, D ;
Brenner, RJ .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2000, 174 (05) :1257-1262
[37]   Computer aids and human second reading as interventions in screening mammography: Two systematic reviews to compare effects on cancer detection and recall rate [J].
Taylor, Paul ;
Potts, Henry W. W. .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2008, 44 (06) :798-807
[38]   Improved Cancer Detection Using Artificial Intelligence: a Retrospective Evaluation of Missed Cancers on Mammography [J].
Watanabe, Alyssa T. ;
Lim, Vivian ;
Vu, Hoanh X. ;
Chim, Richard ;
Weise, Eric ;
Liu, Jenna ;
Bradley, William G. ;
Comstock, Christopher E. .
JOURNAL OF DIGITAL IMAGING, 2019, 32 (04) :625-637
[39]   Workforce Shortages in Breast Imaging: Impact on Mammography Utilization [J].
Wing, Paul ;
Langelier, Margaret H. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2009, 192 (02) :370-378
[40]   A Deep Learning Model to Triage Screening Mammograms: A Simulation Study [J].
Yala, Adam ;
Schuster, Tal ;
Miles, Randy ;
Barzilay, Regina ;
Lehman, Constance .
RADIOLOGY, 2019, 293 (01) :38-46