A systematic scoping review exploring variation in practice in specimen mammography for Intraoperative Margin Analysis in Breast Conserving Surgery and the role of artificial intelligence in optimising diagnostic accuracy
IF 3.2 3区 医学Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Thomas J.E. Hubbard , Ola Shams , Benjamin Gardner , Finley Gibson , Sareh Rowlands , Tim Harries , Nick Stone
{"title":"A systematic scoping review exploring variation in practice in specimen mammography for Intraoperative Margin Analysis in Breast Conserving Surgery and the role of artificial intelligence in optimising diagnostic accuracy","authors":"Thomas J.E. Hubbard , Ola Shams , Benjamin Gardner , Finley Gibson , Sareh Rowlands , Tim Harries , Nick Stone","doi":"10.1016/j.ejrad.2024.111777","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>Specimen Mammography (SM) is commonly used in Breast Conserving Surgery (BCS) for intraoperative margin analysis. A systematic scoping review was conducted to identify sources of methodological variation in Specimen Mammography Interpretation (SMI) and assess the role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques to optimise Diagnostic Accuracy (DA).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Embase, Pubmed, Cochrane and web of science databases were searched. Studies were included if SM was used for margin analysis for BCS with reported DA compared with pathological margin status and data extracted.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>1242 unique studies were identified, of which 40 were included. 39/40 studies did not utilise AI for SMI, with 4 studies comparing 2 relevant techniques, giving 43 non-AI study arms for analysis. There was wide variation in SM techniques, including number of views and location of SM. Specialist performing SMI in usual clinical practice was surgeon (13/39 studies;33 %), radiologist(s) (16/39;41 %), surgeon and radiologist (3/39;8 %) or not stated (7/39;18 %) which differed from the study specialist in 15/39 (38 %) of studies. Diagnostic accuracy in studies ranged from sensitivity 19–91.7 % and specificity 25–100 %.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>There is marked variation in current techniques used for SM for intraoperative margin analysis with correspondingly disparate DA. Only 1 study applied AI to SMI, and we identify how AI could optimise SMI and a template for future work to apply AI techniques to SMI, reduce unwarranted variation and optimise DA.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12063,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Radiology","volume":"181 ","pages":"Article 111777"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0720048X24004935","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose
Specimen Mammography (SM) is commonly used in Breast Conserving Surgery (BCS) for intraoperative margin analysis. A systematic scoping review was conducted to identify sources of methodological variation in Specimen Mammography Interpretation (SMI) and assess the role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques to optimise Diagnostic Accuracy (DA).
Methods
Embase, Pubmed, Cochrane and web of science databases were searched. Studies were included if SM was used for margin analysis for BCS with reported DA compared with pathological margin status and data extracted.
Results
1242 unique studies were identified, of which 40 were included. 39/40 studies did not utilise AI for SMI, with 4 studies comparing 2 relevant techniques, giving 43 non-AI study arms for analysis. There was wide variation in SM techniques, including number of views and location of SM. Specialist performing SMI in usual clinical practice was surgeon (13/39 studies;33 %), radiologist(s) (16/39;41 %), surgeon and radiologist (3/39;8 %) or not stated (7/39;18 %) which differed from the study specialist in 15/39 (38 %) of studies. Diagnostic accuracy in studies ranged from sensitivity 19–91.7 % and specificity 25–100 %.
Conclusions
There is marked variation in current techniques used for SM for intraoperative margin analysis with correspondingly disparate DA. Only 1 study applied AI to SMI, and we identify how AI could optimise SMI and a template for future work to apply AI techniques to SMI, reduce unwarranted variation and optimise DA.
期刊介绍:
European Journal of Radiology is an international journal which aims to communicate to its readers, state-of-the-art information on imaging developments in the form of high quality original research articles and timely reviews on current developments in the field.
Its audience includes clinicians at all levels of training including radiology trainees, newly qualified imaging specialists and the experienced radiologist. Its aim is to inform efficient, appropriate and evidence-based imaging practice to the benefit of patients worldwide.