Screening performance and characteristics of breast cancer detected in the Mammography Screening with Artificial Intelligence trial (MASAI): a randomised, controlled, parallel-group, non-inferiority, single-blinded, screening accuracy study

IF 23.8 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICAL INFORMATICS
Veronica Hernström MD , Viktoria Josefsson MD , Hanna Sartor MD PhD , David Schmidt MD , Anna-Maria Larsson MD PhD , Prof Solveig Hofvind PhD , Ingvar Andersson MD PhD , Aldana Rosso MSc PhD , Oskar Hagberg MSc PhD , Kristina Lång MD PhD
{"title":"Screening performance and characteristics of breast cancer detected in the Mammography Screening with Artificial Intelligence trial (MASAI): a randomised, controlled, parallel-group, non-inferiority, single-blinded, screening accuracy study","authors":"Veronica Hernström MD ,&nbsp;Viktoria Josefsson MD ,&nbsp;Hanna Sartor MD PhD ,&nbsp;David Schmidt MD ,&nbsp;Anna-Maria Larsson MD PhD ,&nbsp;Prof Solveig Hofvind PhD ,&nbsp;Ingvar Andersson MD PhD ,&nbsp;Aldana Rosso MSc PhD ,&nbsp;Oskar Hagberg MSc PhD ,&nbsp;Kristina Lång MD PhD","doi":"10.1016/S2589-7500(24)00267-X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Emerging evidence suggests that artificial intelligence (AI) can increase cancer detection in mammography screening while reducing screen-reading workload, but further understanding of the clinical impact is needed.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>In this randomised, controlled, parallel-group, non-inferiority, single-blinded, screening-accuracy study, done within the Swedish national screening programme, women recruited at four screening sites in southwest Sweden (Malmö, Lund, Landskrona, and Trelleborg) who were eligible for mammography screening were randomly allocated (1:1) to AI-supported screening or standard double reading. The AI system (Transpara version 1.7.0 ScreenPoint Medical, Nijmegen, Netherlands) was used to triage screening examinations to single or double reading and as detection support highlighting suspicious findings. This is a protocol-defined analysis of the secondary outcome measures of recall, cancer detection, false-positive rates, positive predictive value of recall, type and stage of cancer detected, and screen-reading workload. This trial is registered at <span><span>ClinicalTrials.gov</span><svg><path></path></svg></span>, <span><span>NCT04838756</span><svg><path></path></svg></span> and is closed to accrual.</div></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><div>Between April 12, 2021, and Dec 7, 2022, 105 934 women were randomly assigned to the intervention or control group. 19 women were excluded from the analysis. The median age was 53·7 years (IQR 46·5–63·2). AI-supported screening among 53 043 participants resulted in 338 detected cancers and 1110 recalls. Standard screening among 52 872 participants resulted in 262 detected cancers and 1027 recalls. Cancer-detection rates were 6·4 per 1000 (95% CI 5·7–7·1) screened participants in the intervention group and 5·0 per 1000 (4·4–5·6) in the control group, a ratio of 1·29 (95% CI 1·09–1·51; p=0·0021). AI-supported screening resulted in an increased detection of invasive cancers (270 <em>vs</em> 217, a proportion ratio of 1·24 [95% CI 1·04–1·48]), wich were mainly small lymph-node negative cancers (58 more T1, 46 more lymph-node negative, and 21 more non-luminal A). AI-supported screening also resulted in an increased detection of in situ cancers (68 <em>vs</em> 45, a proportion ratio of 1·51 [1·03–2·19]), with about half of the increased detection being high-grade in situ cancer (12 more nuclear grade III, and no increase in nuclear grade I). The recall and false-positive rate were not significantly higher in the intervention group (a ratio of 1·08 [95% CI 0·99–1·17; p=0·084] and 1·01 [0·91–1·11; p=0·92], respectively). The positive predictive value of recall was significantly higher in the intervention group compared with the control group, with a ratio of 1·19 (95% CI 1·04–1·37; p=0·012). There were 61 248 screen readings in the intervention group and 109 692 in the control group, resulting in a 44·2% reduction in the screen-reading workload.</div></div><div><h3>Interpretation</h3><div>The findings suggest that AI contributes to the early detection of clinically relevant breast cancer and reduces screen-reading workload without increasing false positives.</div></div><div><h3>Funding</h3><div>Swedish Cancer Society, Confederation of Regional Cancer Centres, and Swedish governmental funding for clinical research.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48534,"journal":{"name":"Lancet Digital Health","volume":"7 3","pages":"Pages e175-e183"},"PeriodicalIF":23.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lancet Digital Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S258975002400267X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Emerging evidence suggests that artificial intelligence (AI) can increase cancer detection in mammography screening while reducing screen-reading workload, but further understanding of the clinical impact is needed.

Methods

In this randomised, controlled, parallel-group, non-inferiority, single-blinded, screening-accuracy study, done within the Swedish national screening programme, women recruited at four screening sites in southwest Sweden (Malmö, Lund, Landskrona, and Trelleborg) who were eligible for mammography screening were randomly allocated (1:1) to AI-supported screening or standard double reading. The AI system (Transpara version 1.7.0 ScreenPoint Medical, Nijmegen, Netherlands) was used to triage screening examinations to single or double reading and as detection support highlighting suspicious findings. This is a protocol-defined analysis of the secondary outcome measures of recall, cancer detection, false-positive rates, positive predictive value of recall, type and stage of cancer detected, and screen-reading workload. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04838756 and is closed to accrual.

Findings

Between April 12, 2021, and Dec 7, 2022, 105 934 women were randomly assigned to the intervention or control group. 19 women were excluded from the analysis. The median age was 53·7 years (IQR 46·5–63·2). AI-supported screening among 53 043 participants resulted in 338 detected cancers and 1110 recalls. Standard screening among 52 872 participants resulted in 262 detected cancers and 1027 recalls. Cancer-detection rates were 6·4 per 1000 (95% CI 5·7–7·1) screened participants in the intervention group and 5·0 per 1000 (4·4–5·6) in the control group, a ratio of 1·29 (95% CI 1·09–1·51; p=0·0021). AI-supported screening resulted in an increased detection of invasive cancers (270 vs 217, a proportion ratio of 1·24 [95% CI 1·04–1·48]), wich were mainly small lymph-node negative cancers (58 more T1, 46 more lymph-node negative, and 21 more non-luminal A). AI-supported screening also resulted in an increased detection of in situ cancers (68 vs 45, a proportion ratio of 1·51 [1·03–2·19]), with about half of the increased detection being high-grade in situ cancer (12 more nuclear grade III, and no increase in nuclear grade I). The recall and false-positive rate were not significantly higher in the intervention group (a ratio of 1·08 [95% CI 0·99–1·17; p=0·084] and 1·01 [0·91–1·11; p=0·92], respectively). The positive predictive value of recall was significantly higher in the intervention group compared with the control group, with a ratio of 1·19 (95% CI 1·04–1·37; p=0·012). There were 61 248 screen readings in the intervention group and 109 692 in the control group, resulting in a 44·2% reduction in the screen-reading workload.

Interpretation

The findings suggest that AI contributes to the early detection of clinically relevant breast cancer and reduces screen-reading workload without increasing false positives.

Funding

Swedish Cancer Society, Confederation of Regional Cancer Centres, and Swedish governmental funding for clinical research.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
41.20
自引率
1.60%
发文量
232
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: The Lancet Digital Health publishes important, innovative, and practice-changing research on any topic connected with digital technology in clinical medicine, public health, and global health. The journal’s open access content crosses subject boundaries, building bridges between health professionals and researchers.By bringing together the most important advances in this multidisciplinary field,The Lancet Digital Health is the most prominent publishing venue in digital health. We publish a range of content types including Articles,Review, Comment, and Correspondence, contributing to promoting digital technologies in health practice worldwide.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信