Cargando…

Breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis: comparison of different reading strategies implementing artificial intelligence

OBJECTIVES: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) can detect more cancers than the current standard breast screening method, digital mammography (DM); however, it can substantially increase the reading workload and thus hinder implementation in screening. Artificial intelligence (AI) might be a solutio...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dahlblom, Victor, Dustler, Magnus, Tingberg, Anders, Zackrisson, Sophia
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10121528/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36502459
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-09316-y
_version_ 1785029389777371136
author Dahlblom, Victor
Dustler, Magnus
Tingberg, Anders
Zackrisson, Sophia
author_facet Dahlblom, Victor
Dustler, Magnus
Tingberg, Anders
Zackrisson, Sophia
author_sort Dahlblom, Victor
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) can detect more cancers than the current standard breast screening method, digital mammography (DM); however, it can substantially increase the reading workload and thus hinder implementation in screening. Artificial intelligence (AI) might be a solution. The aim of this study was to retrospectively test different ways of using AI in a screening workflow. METHODS: An AI system was used to analyse 14,772 double-read single-view DBT examinations from a screening trial with paired DM double reading. Three scenarios were studied: if AI can identify normal cases that can be excluded from human reading; if AI can replace the second reader; if AI can replace both readers. The number of detected cancers and false positives was compared with DM or DBT double reading. RESULTS: By excluding normal cases and only reading 50.5% (7460/14,772) of all examinations, 95% (121/127) of the DBT double reading detected cancers could be detected. Compared to DM screening, 27% (26/95) more cancers could be detected (p < 0.001) while keeping recall rates at the same level. With AI replacing the second reader, 95% (120/127) of the DBT double reading detected cancers could be detected—26% (25/95) more than DM screening (p < 0.001)—while increasing recall rates by 53%. AI alone with DBT has a sensitivity similar to DM double reading (p = 0.689). CONCLUSION: AI can open up possibilities for implementing DBT screening and detecting more cancers with the total reading workload unchanged. Considering the potential legal and psychological implications, replacing the second reader with AI would probably be most the feasible approach. KEY POINTS: • Breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis and artificial intelligence can detect more cancers than mammography screening without increasing screen-reading workload. • Artificial intelligence can either exclude low-risk cases from double reading or replace the second reader. • Retrospective study based on paired mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis screening data.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10121528
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101215282023-04-23 Breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis: comparison of different reading strategies implementing artificial intelligence Dahlblom, Victor Dustler, Magnus Tingberg, Anders Zackrisson, Sophia Eur Radiol Breast OBJECTIVES: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) can detect more cancers than the current standard breast screening method, digital mammography (DM); however, it can substantially increase the reading workload and thus hinder implementation in screening. Artificial intelligence (AI) might be a solution. The aim of this study was to retrospectively test different ways of using AI in a screening workflow. METHODS: An AI system was used to analyse 14,772 double-read single-view DBT examinations from a screening trial with paired DM double reading. Three scenarios were studied: if AI can identify normal cases that can be excluded from human reading; if AI can replace the second reader; if AI can replace both readers. The number of detected cancers and false positives was compared with DM or DBT double reading. RESULTS: By excluding normal cases and only reading 50.5% (7460/14,772) of all examinations, 95% (121/127) of the DBT double reading detected cancers could be detected. Compared to DM screening, 27% (26/95) more cancers could be detected (p < 0.001) while keeping recall rates at the same level. With AI replacing the second reader, 95% (120/127) of the DBT double reading detected cancers could be detected—26% (25/95) more than DM screening (p < 0.001)—while increasing recall rates by 53%. AI alone with DBT has a sensitivity similar to DM double reading (p = 0.689). CONCLUSION: AI can open up possibilities for implementing DBT screening and detecting more cancers with the total reading workload unchanged. Considering the potential legal and psychological implications, replacing the second reader with AI would probably be most the feasible approach. KEY POINTS: • Breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis and artificial intelligence can detect more cancers than mammography screening without increasing screen-reading workload. • Artificial intelligence can either exclude low-risk cases from double reading or replace the second reader. • Retrospective study based on paired mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis screening data. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-12-11 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10121528/ /pubmed/36502459 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-09316-y Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Breast
Dahlblom, Victor
Dustler, Magnus
Tingberg, Anders
Zackrisson, Sophia
Breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis: comparison of different reading strategies implementing artificial intelligence
title Breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis: comparison of different reading strategies implementing artificial intelligence
title_full Breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis: comparison of different reading strategies implementing artificial intelligence
title_fullStr Breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis: comparison of different reading strategies implementing artificial intelligence
title_full_unstemmed Breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis: comparison of different reading strategies implementing artificial intelligence
title_short Breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis: comparison of different reading strategies implementing artificial intelligence
title_sort breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis: comparison of different reading strategies implementing artificial intelligence
topic Breast
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10121528/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36502459
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-09316-y
work_keys_str_mv AT dahlblomvictor breastcancerscreeningwithdigitalbreasttomosynthesiscomparisonofdifferentreadingstrategiesimplementingartificialintelligence
AT dustlermagnus breastcancerscreeningwithdigitalbreasttomosynthesiscomparisonofdifferentreadingstrategiesimplementingartificialintelligence
AT tingberganders breastcancerscreeningwithdigitalbreasttomosynthesiscomparisonofdifferentreadingstrategiesimplementingartificialintelligence
AT zackrissonsophia breastcancerscreeningwithdigitalbreasttomosynthesiscomparisonofdifferentreadingstrategiesimplementingartificialintelligence