Daphne Resch, Roberto Lo Gullo, Jonas Teuwen, Friedrich Semturs, Johann Hummel, Alexandra Resch, Katja Pinker
{"title":"AI-enhanced Mammography With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Detection: Clinical Value and Comparison With Human Performance.","authors":"Daphne Resch, Roberto Lo Gullo, Jonas Teuwen, Friedrich Semturs, Johann Hummel, Alexandra Resch, Katja Pinker","doi":"10.1148/rycan.230149","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Purpose To compare two deep learning-based commercially available artificial intelligence (AI) systems for mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and benchmark them against the performance of radiologists. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included consecutive asymptomatic patients who underwent mammography with DBT (2019-2020). Two AI systems (Transpara 1.7.0 and ProFound AI 3.0) were used to evaluate the DBT examinations. The systems were compared using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to calculate the area under the ROC curve (AUC) for detecting malignancy overall and within subgroups based on mammographic breast density. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System results obtained from standard-of-care human double-reading were compared against AI results with use of the DeLong test. Results Of 419 female patients (median age, 60 years [IQR, 52-70 years]) included, 58 had histologically proven breast cancer. The AUC was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.85, 0.91), 0.93 (95% CI: 0.90, 0.95), and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.96, 0.99) for Transpara, ProFound AI, and human double-reading, respectively. For Transpara, a rule-out criterion of score 7 or lower yielded 100% (95% CI: 94.2, 100.0) sensitivity and 60.9% (95% CI: 55.7, 66.0) specificity. The rule-in criterion of higher than score 9 yielded 96.6% sensitivity (95% CI: 88.1, 99.6) and 78.1% specificity (95% CI: 73.8, 82.5). For ProFound AI, a rule-out criterion of lower than score 51 yielded 100% sensitivity (95% CI: 93.8, 100) and 67.0% specificity (95% CI: 62.2, 72.1). The rule-in criterion of higher than score 69 yielded 93.1% (95% CI: 83.3, 98.1) sensitivity and 82.0% (95% CI: 77.9, 86.1) specificity. Conclusion Both AI systems showed high performance in breast cancer detection but lower performance compared with human double-reading. <b>Keywords:</b> Mammography, Breast, Oncology, Artificial Intelligence, Deep Learning, Digital Breast Tomosynthesis © RSNA, 2024.</p>","PeriodicalId":20786,"journal":{"name":"Radiology. Imaging cancer","volume":"6 4","pages":"e230149"},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11287230/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiology. Imaging cancer","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1148/rycan.230149","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose To compare two deep learning-based commercially available artificial intelligence (AI) systems for mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and benchmark them against the performance of radiologists. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included consecutive asymptomatic patients who underwent mammography with DBT (2019-2020). Two AI systems (Transpara 1.7.0 and ProFound AI 3.0) were used to evaluate the DBT examinations. The systems were compared using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to calculate the area under the ROC curve (AUC) for detecting malignancy overall and within subgroups based on mammographic breast density. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System results obtained from standard-of-care human double-reading were compared against AI results with use of the DeLong test. Results Of 419 female patients (median age, 60 years [IQR, 52-70 years]) included, 58 had histologically proven breast cancer. The AUC was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.85, 0.91), 0.93 (95% CI: 0.90, 0.95), and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.96, 0.99) for Transpara, ProFound AI, and human double-reading, respectively. For Transpara, a rule-out criterion of score 7 or lower yielded 100% (95% CI: 94.2, 100.0) sensitivity and 60.9% (95% CI: 55.7, 66.0) specificity. The rule-in criterion of higher than score 9 yielded 96.6% sensitivity (95% CI: 88.1, 99.6) and 78.1% specificity (95% CI: 73.8, 82.5). For ProFound AI, a rule-out criterion of lower than score 51 yielded 100% sensitivity (95% CI: 93.8, 100) and 67.0% specificity (95% CI: 62.2, 72.1). The rule-in criterion of higher than score 69 yielded 93.1% (95% CI: 83.3, 98.1) sensitivity and 82.0% (95% CI: 77.9, 86.1) specificity. Conclusion Both AI systems showed high performance in breast cancer detection but lower performance compared with human double-reading. Keywords: Mammography, Breast, Oncology, Artificial Intelligence, Deep Learning, Digital Breast Tomosynthesis © RSNA, 2024.
用数字乳腺断层合成技术进行乳腺癌检测的人工智能增强型乳腺 X 线照相术:临床价值及与人类表现的比较。
目的 比较两种基于深度学习的市售人工智能(AI)系统,用于数字乳腺断层合成(DBT)乳腺放射摄影,并将它们与放射科医生的表现进行比较。材料与方法 这项回顾性研究纳入了连续接受乳腺 X 射线摄影与 DBT 的无症状患者(2019-2020 年)。两套人工智能系统(Transpara 1.7.0 和 ProFound AI 3.0)用于评估 DBT 检查。使用接收器操作特征(ROC)分析对这两种系统进行了比较,以计算基于乳腺X线照相术乳腺密度的总体和亚组内检测恶性肿瘤的ROC曲线下面积(AUC)。乳腺成像报告和数据系统(Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System)的标准人工双读结果与人工智能(AI)的DeLong检验结果进行了比较。结果 在纳入的 419 名女性患者(中位年龄 60 岁 [IQR,52-70 岁])中,有 58 人经组织学证实患有乳腺癌。Transpara、ProFound AI和人类双读的AUC分别为0.86(95% CI:0.85,0.91)、0.93(95% CI:0.90,0.95)和0.98(95% CI:0.96,0.99)。对于 Transpara,7 分或更低的排除标准可产生 100% (95% CI: 94.2, 100.0) 的灵敏度和 60.9% (95% CI: 55.7, 66.0) 的特异性。高于 9 分的规则输入标准产生了 96.6% 的灵敏度(95% CI:88.1, 99.6)和 78.1% 的特异性(95% CI:73.8, 82.5)。对于 ProFound AI,低于 51 分的排除标准可产生 100% 的灵敏度(95% CI:93.8, 100)和 67.0% 的特异性(95% CI:62.2, 72.1)。以高于 69 分为入选标准,灵敏度为 93.1%(95% CI:83.3,98.1),特异度为 82.0%(95% CI:77.9,86.1)。结论 两种人工智能系统在乳腺癌检测中都表现出较高的性能,但与人工双读相比性能较低。关键词乳腺放射摄影术、乳腺、肿瘤学、人工智能、深度学习、数字乳腺断层扫描 © RSNA, 2024.
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。