Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
To evaluate the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) to identify normal mammograms in a screening population.
Methods
In this retrospective study, 9581 double-read mammography screening exams including 68 screen-detected cancers and 187 false positives, a subcohort of the prospective population-based Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, were analysed with a deep learning–based AI system. The AI system categorises mammograms with a cancer risk score increasing from 1 to 10. The effect on cancer detection and false positives of excluding mammograms below different AI risk thresholds from reading by radiologists was investigated. A panel of three breast radiologists assessed the radiographic appearance, type, and visibility of screen-detected cancers assigned low-risk scores (≤ 5). The reduction of normal exams, cancers, and false positives for the different thresholds was presented with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
Results
If mammograms scored 1 and 2 were excluded from screen-reading, 1829 (19.1%; 95% CI 18.3–19.9) exams could be removed, including 10 (5.3%; 95% CI 2.1–8.6) false positives but no cancers. In total, 5082 (53.0%; 95% CI 52.0–54.0) exams, including 7 (10.3%; 95% CI 3.1–17.5) cancers and 52 (27.8%; 95% CI 21.4–34.2) false positives, had low-risk scores. All, except one, of the seven screen-detected cancers with low-risk scores were judged to be clearly visible.
Conclusions
The evaluated AI system can correctly identify a proportion of a screening population as cancer-free and also reduce false positives. Thus, AI has the potential to improve mammography screening efficiency.
Key Points
• Retrospective study showed that AI can identify a proportion of mammograms as normal in a screening population.
• Excluding normal exams from screening using AI can reduce false positives.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging,General Medicine
Reference29 articles.
1. Giordano L, von Karsa L, Tomatis M et al (2012) Mammographic screening programmes in Europe: organization, coverage and participation. J Med Screen 19(Suppl 1):72–82. https://doi.org/10.1258/jms.2012.012085
2. Smith RA, Andrews KS, Brooks D et al (2018) Cancer screening in the United States, 2018: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin 68:297–316. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21446
3. Perry N, Broeders M, De Wolf C et al (2006) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis Fourth Edition. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
4. Gulland A (2016) Staff shortages are putting UK breast cancer screening “at risk,” survey finds. BMJ 353:i2350. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i2350
5. Posso MC, Puig T, Quintana MJ, Solà-Roca J, Bonfill X (2016) Double versus single reading of mammograms in a breast cancer screening programme: a cost-consequence analysis. Eur Radiol 26:3262–3271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-4175-4
Cited by
81 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献