Interval Cancer Detection Using a Neural Network and Breast Density in Women with Negative Screening Mammograms.

Background Inclusion of mammographic breast density (BD) in breast cancer risk models improves accuracy, but accuracy remains modest. Interval cancer (IC) risk prediction may be improved by combining assessments of BD and an artificial intelligence (AI) cancer detection system. Purpose To evaluate the performance of a neural network (NN)-based model that combines the assessments of BD and an AI system in the prediction of risk of developing IC among women with negative screening mammography results. Materials and Methods This retrospective nested case-control study performed with screening examinations included women who developed IC and women with normal follow-up findings (from January 2011 to January 2015). An AI cancer detection system analyzed all studies yielding a score of 1-10, representing increasing likelihood of malignancy. BD was automatically computed using publicly available software. An NN model was trained by combining the AI score and BD using 10-fold cross-validation. Bootstrap analysis was used to calculate the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity at 90% specificity, and 95% CIs of the AI, BD, and NN models. Results A total of 2222 women with IC and 4661 women in the control group were included (mean age, 61 years; age range, 49-76 years). AUC of the NN model was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.77,0.81), which was higher than AUC of the AI cancer detection system or BD alone (AUC, 0.73 [95% CI: 0.71, 0.76] and 0.69 [95% CI: 0.67, 0.71], respectively; P < .001 for both). At 90% specificity, the NN model had a sensitivity of 50.9% (339 of 666 women; 95% CI: 45.2, 56.3) for prediction of IC, which was higher than that of the AI system (37.5%; 250 of 666 women; 95% CI: 33.0, 43.7; P < .001) or BD percentage alone (22.4%; 149 of 666 women; 95% CI: 17.9, 28.5; P < .001). Conclusion The combined assessment of an artificial intelligence detection system and breast density measurements enabled identification of a larger proportion of women who would develop interval cancer compared with either method alone. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license.

Impact of artificial intelligence support on accuracy and reading time in breast tomosynthesis image interpretation: a multi-reader multi-case study.

OBJECTIVES: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) increases sensitivity of mammography and is increasingly implemented in breast cancer screening. However, the large volume of images increases the risk of reading errors and reading time. This study aims to investigate whether the accuracy of breast radiologists reading wide-angle DBT increases with the aid of an artificial intelligence (AI) support system. Also, the impact on reading time was assessed and the stand-alone performance of the AI system in the detection of malignancies was compared to the average radiologist. METHODS: A multi-reader multi-case study was performed with 240 bilateral DBT exams (71 breasts with cancer lesions, 70 breasts with benign findings, 339 normal breasts). Exams were interpreted by 18 radiologists, with and without AI support, providing cancer suspicion scores per breast. Using AI support, radiologists were shown examination-based and region-based cancer likelihood scores. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and reading time per exam were compared between reading conditions using mixed-models analysis of variance. RESULTS: On average, the AUC was higher using AI support (0.863 vs 0.833; p = 0.0025). Using AI support, reading time per DBT exam was reduced (p < 0.001) from 41 (95% CI = 39-42 s) to 36 s (95% CI = 35- 37 s). The AUC of the stand-alone AI system was non-inferior to the AUC of the average radiologist (+0.007, p = 0.8115). CONCLUSIONS: Radiologists improved their cancer detection and reduced reading time when evaluating DBT examinations using an AI reading support system. KEY POINTS: • Radiologists improved their cancer detection accuracy in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) when using an AI system for support, while simultaneously reducing reading time. • The stand-alone breast cancer detection performance of an AI system is non-inferior to the average performance of radiologists for reading digital breast tomosynthesis exams. • The use of an AI support system could make advanced and more reliable imaging techniques more accessible and could allow for more cost-effective breast screening programs with DBT.

One-view digital breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone modality for breast cancer detection: do we need more?

PURPOSE: To compare the performance of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis (1v-DBT) to that of three other protocols combining DBT and mammography (DM) for breast cancer detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six radiologists, three experienced with 1v-DBT in screening, retrospectively reviewed 181 cases (76 malignant, 50 benign, 55 normal) in two sessions. First, they scored sequentially: 1v-DBT (medio-lateral oblique, MLO), 1v-DBT (MLO) + 1v-DM (cranio-caudal, CC) and two-view DM + DBT (2v-DM+2v-DBT). The second session involved only 2v-DM. Lesions were scored using BI-RADS® and level of suspiciousness (1-10). Sensitivity, specificity, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and jack-knife alternative free-response ROC (JAFROC) were computed. RESULTS: On average, 1v-DBT was non-inferior to any of the other protocols in terms of JAFROC figure-of-merit, area under ROC curve, sensitivity or specificity (p>0.391). While readers inexperienced with 1v-DBT screening improved their sensitivity when adding more images (69-79 %, p=0.019), experienced readers showed similar sensitivity (76 %) and specificity (70 %) between 1v-DBT and 2v-DM+2v-DBT (p=0.482). Subanalysis by lesion type and breast density showed no difference among modalities. CONCLUSION: Detection performance with 1v-DBT is not statistically inferior to 2v-DM or to 2v-DM+2v-DBT; its use as a stand-alone modality might be sufficient for readers experienced with this protocol. KEY POINTS: • One-view breast tomosynthesis is not inferior to two-view digital mammography. • One-view DBT is not inferior to 2-view DM plus 2-view DBT. • Training may lead to 1v-DBT being sufficient for screening.