Artificial intelligence-based computer-assisted detection/diagnosis (AI-CAD) for screening mammography: Outcomes of AI-CAD in the mammographic interpretation workflow
Jung Hyun Yoon , Kyungwha Han , Hee Jung Suh , Ji Hyun Youk , Si Eun Lee , Eun-Kyung Kim
{"title":"Artificial intelligence-based computer-assisted detection/diagnosis (AI-CAD) for screening mammography: Outcomes of AI-CAD in the mammographic interpretation workflow","authors":"Jung Hyun Yoon , Kyungwha Han , Hee Jung Suh , Ji Hyun Youk , Si Eun Lee , Eun-Kyung Kim","doi":"10.1016/j.ejro.2023.100509","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To evaluate the stand-alone diagnostic performances of AI-CAD and outcomes of AI-CAD detected abnormalities when applied to the mammographic interpretation workflow.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>From January 2016 to December 2017, 6499 screening mammograms of 5228 women were collected from a single screening facility. Historic reads of three radiologists were used as radiologist interpretation. A commercially-available AI-CAD was used for analysis. One radiologist not involved in interpretation had retrospectively reviewed the abnormality features and assessed the significance (negligible vs. need recall) of the AI-CAD marks. Ground truth in terms of cancer, benign or absence of abnormality was confirmed according to histopathologic diagnosis or negative results on the next-round screen.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of the 6499 mammograms, 6282 (96.7%) were in the negative, 189 (2.9%) were in the benign, and 28 (0.4%) were in the cancer group. AI-CAD detected 5 (17.9%, 5 of 28) of the 9 cancers that were intially interpreted as negative. Of the 648 AI-CAD recalls, 89.0% (577 of 648) were marks seen on examinations in the negative group, and 267 (41.2%) of the AI-CAD marks were considered to be negligible. Stand-alone AI-CAD has significantly higher recall rates (10.0% vs. 3.4%, <em>P</em> < 0.001) with comparable sensitivity and cancer detection rates (<em>P</em> = 0.086 and 0.102, respectively) when compared to the radiologists’ interpretation.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>AI-CAD detected 17.9% additional cancers on screening mammography that were initially overlooked by the radiologists. In spite of the additional cancer detection, AI-CAD had significantly higher recall rates in the clinical workflow, in which 89.0% of AI-CAD marks are on negative mammograms.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":38076,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Radiology Open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/3e/55/main.PMC10362167.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Radiology Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352047723000357","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose
To evaluate the stand-alone diagnostic performances of AI-CAD and outcomes of AI-CAD detected abnormalities when applied to the mammographic interpretation workflow.
Methods
From January 2016 to December 2017, 6499 screening mammograms of 5228 women were collected from a single screening facility. Historic reads of three radiologists were used as radiologist interpretation. A commercially-available AI-CAD was used for analysis. One radiologist not involved in interpretation had retrospectively reviewed the abnormality features and assessed the significance (negligible vs. need recall) of the AI-CAD marks. Ground truth in terms of cancer, benign or absence of abnormality was confirmed according to histopathologic diagnosis or negative results on the next-round screen.
Results
Of the 6499 mammograms, 6282 (96.7%) were in the negative, 189 (2.9%) were in the benign, and 28 (0.4%) were in the cancer group. AI-CAD detected 5 (17.9%, 5 of 28) of the 9 cancers that were intially interpreted as negative. Of the 648 AI-CAD recalls, 89.0% (577 of 648) were marks seen on examinations in the negative group, and 267 (41.2%) of the AI-CAD marks were considered to be negligible. Stand-alone AI-CAD has significantly higher recall rates (10.0% vs. 3.4%, P < 0.001) with comparable sensitivity and cancer detection rates (P = 0.086 and 0.102, respectively) when compared to the radiologists’ interpretation.
Conclusion
AI-CAD detected 17.9% additional cancers on screening mammography that were initially overlooked by the radiologists. In spite of the additional cancer detection, AI-CAD had significantly higher recall rates in the clinical workflow, in which 89.0% of AI-CAD marks are on negative mammograms.