Cargando…

Artificial intelligence computer-aided detection enhances synthesized mammograms: comparison with original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images in an experimental setting

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether original full-field digital mammograms (DMs) can be replaced with synthesized mammograms in both screening and diagnostic settings. To compare reader performance of artificial intelligence computer-aided detection synthesized mammograms (AI CAD SMs) with that o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Uematsu, Takayoshi, Nakashima, Kazuaki, Harada, Taiyo Leopoldo, Nasu, Hatsuko, Igarashi, Tatsuya
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Nature Singapore 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9813027/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36001270
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12282-022-01396-4
_version_ 1784863843232514048
author Uematsu, Takayoshi
Nakashima, Kazuaki
Harada, Taiyo Leopoldo
Nasu, Hatsuko
Igarashi, Tatsuya
author_facet Uematsu, Takayoshi
Nakashima, Kazuaki
Harada, Taiyo Leopoldo
Nasu, Hatsuko
Igarashi, Tatsuya
author_sort Uematsu, Takayoshi
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether original full-field digital mammograms (DMs) can be replaced with synthesized mammograms in both screening and diagnostic settings. To compare reader performance of artificial intelligence computer-aided detection synthesized mammograms (AI CAD SMs) with that of DM alone or in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) images in an experimental setting. METHODS: We compared the performance of multireader (n = 4) and reading multicase (n = 388), in 84 cancers, 83 biopsy-proven benign lesions, and 221 normal or benign cases with negative results after 1-year follow-up. Each reading was independently interpreted with four reading modes: DM, AI CAD SM, DM + DBT, and AI CAD SM + DBT. The accuracy of probability of malignancy (POM) and five-category ratings were evaluated using areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) in the random-reader analysis. RESULTS: The mean AUC values based on POM for DM, AI CAD SM, DM + DBT, and AI CAD SM + DBT were 0.871, 0.902, 0.895, and 0.909, respectively. The mean AUC of AI CAD SM was significantly higher (P = 0.002) than that of DM. For calcification lesions, the sensitivity of SM and DM did not differ significantly (P = 0.204). The mean AUC for AI CAD SM + DBT was higher than that of DM + DBT (P = 0.082). ROC curves based on the five-category ratings showed similar proximity of the overall performance levels. CONCLUSIONS: AI CAD SM alone was superior to DM alone. Also, AI CAD SM + DBT was superior to DM + DBT but not statistically significant.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9813027
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Nature Singapore
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98130272023-01-06 Artificial intelligence computer-aided detection enhances synthesized mammograms: comparison with original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images in an experimental setting Uematsu, Takayoshi Nakashima, Kazuaki Harada, Taiyo Leopoldo Nasu, Hatsuko Igarashi, Tatsuya Breast Cancer Original Article BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether original full-field digital mammograms (DMs) can be replaced with synthesized mammograms in both screening and diagnostic settings. To compare reader performance of artificial intelligence computer-aided detection synthesized mammograms (AI CAD SMs) with that of DM alone or in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) images in an experimental setting. METHODS: We compared the performance of multireader (n = 4) and reading multicase (n = 388), in 84 cancers, 83 biopsy-proven benign lesions, and 221 normal or benign cases with negative results after 1-year follow-up. Each reading was independently interpreted with four reading modes: DM, AI CAD SM, DM + DBT, and AI CAD SM + DBT. The accuracy of probability of malignancy (POM) and five-category ratings were evaluated using areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) in the random-reader analysis. RESULTS: The mean AUC values based on POM for DM, AI CAD SM, DM + DBT, and AI CAD SM + DBT were 0.871, 0.902, 0.895, and 0.909, respectively. The mean AUC of AI CAD SM was significantly higher (P = 0.002) than that of DM. For calcification lesions, the sensitivity of SM and DM did not differ significantly (P = 0.204). The mean AUC for AI CAD SM + DBT was higher than that of DM + DBT (P = 0.082). ROC curves based on the five-category ratings showed similar proximity of the overall performance levels. CONCLUSIONS: AI CAD SM alone was superior to DM alone. Also, AI CAD SM + DBT was superior to DM + DBT but not statistically significant. Springer Nature Singapore 2022-08-24 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC9813027/ /pubmed/36001270 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12282-022-01396-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis 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 Original Article
Uematsu, Takayoshi
Nakashima, Kazuaki
Harada, Taiyo Leopoldo
Nasu, Hatsuko
Igarashi, Tatsuya
Artificial intelligence computer-aided detection enhances synthesized mammograms: comparison with original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images in an experimental setting
title Artificial intelligence computer-aided detection enhances synthesized mammograms: comparison with original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images in an experimental setting
title_full Artificial intelligence computer-aided detection enhances synthesized mammograms: comparison with original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images in an experimental setting
title_fullStr Artificial intelligence computer-aided detection enhances synthesized mammograms: comparison with original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images in an experimental setting
title_full_unstemmed Artificial intelligence computer-aided detection enhances synthesized mammograms: comparison with original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images in an experimental setting
title_short Artificial intelligence computer-aided detection enhances synthesized mammograms: comparison with original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images in an experimental setting
title_sort artificial intelligence computer-aided detection enhances synthesized mammograms: comparison with original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images in an experimental setting
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9813027/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36001270
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12282-022-01396-4
work_keys_str_mv AT uematsutakayoshi artificialintelligencecomputeraideddetectionenhancessynthesizedmammogramscomparisonwithoriginaldigitalmammogramsaloneandincombinationwithtomosynthesisimagesinanexperimentalsetting
AT nakashimakazuaki artificialintelligencecomputeraideddetectionenhancessynthesizedmammogramscomparisonwithoriginaldigitalmammogramsaloneandincombinationwithtomosynthesisimagesinanexperimentalsetting
AT haradataiyoleopoldo artificialintelligencecomputeraideddetectionenhancessynthesizedmammogramscomparisonwithoriginaldigitalmammogramsaloneandincombinationwithtomosynthesisimagesinanexperimentalsetting
AT nasuhatsuko artificialintelligencecomputeraideddetectionenhancessynthesizedmammogramscomparisonwithoriginaldigitalmammogramsaloneandincombinationwithtomosynthesisimagesinanexperimentalsetting
AT igarashitatsuya artificialintelligencecomputeraideddetectionenhancessynthesizedmammogramscomparisonwithoriginaldigitalmammogramsaloneandincombinationwithtomosynthesisimagesinanexperimentalsetting