Defining the Clinical Indication for Real-Time Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Ultrasound in Breast Lesions with Low Suspicion of Malignancy.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 ACOUSTICS
Jeeyeon Lee, Bora Yang, Won Hwa Kim, Jaeil Kim, Ho Yong Park, Byeongju Kang, Joon Suk Moon, Hai Lin Park
{"title":"Defining the Clinical Indication for Real-Time Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Ultrasound in Breast Lesions with Low Suspicion of Malignancy.","authors":"Jeeyeon Lee, Bora Yang, Won Hwa Kim, Jaeil Kim, Ho Yong Park, Byeongju Kang, Joon Suk Moon, Hai Lin Park","doi":"10.1002/jum.70439","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate whether real-time artificial intelligence (AI) breast ultrasound (US) can identify a subgroup of breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) category 4A lesions without suspicious mammographic (MMG) findings in whom unnecessary biopsy may be safely avoided.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective analysis of single-center biopsy registry included 641 consecutive US BI-RADS 4A lesions that underwent vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. Before conducting biopsy, the lesions were reassessed using a real-time AI US system (CadAI-B®), and MMG findings were classified as suspicious or non-suspicious based on formal reports. Seven prespecified biopsy-decision strategies were evaluated, including 3 AI-only strategies, 3 mammography-gated AI strategies, and the current standard strategy of biopsy all BI-RADS 4A lesions. The primary outcomes were biopsy reduction rate, missed cancers, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy, with final pathology as the reference standard.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 641 cases of US BI-RADS 4A lesions, 26 cases of malignancies (4.1%) were identified, including 14 cases of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), 11 cases of invasive ductal carcinomas, and 1 case of apocrine carcinoma. AI reassigned 289 cases of lesions (45.1%) to BI-RADS categories 1-3. AI-only biopsy-deferral strategies missed 30.8% and 38.5% of malignancies when biopsy was deferred for AI BI-RADS ≤2 and ≤3 lesions, respectively, with DCIS accounting for most missed cancers. In contrast, among lesions without suspicious MMG findings, no malignancies were observed in AI BI-RADS 1-3 lesions. The sequential strategy of deferring biopsy only for lesions with AI BI-RADS ≤3 and non-suspicious MMG findings reduced biopsies by 43.5% (279/641) while maintaining 100.0% sensitivity (95% CI, 87.1-100.0%) and increasing specificity to 45.4% (95% CI, 41.4-49.4%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Real-time AI breast US alone could not safely support biopsy deferral in US BI-RADS 4A lesions. However, after suspicious MMG findings had been excluded, AI identified a low-risk subgroup in whom unnecessary biopsy could be substantially reduced without compromising cancer detection. These findings suggest that the clinical utility of real-time AI breast US lies in patients without suspicious MMG findings. Prospective multicenter validation is warranted before clinical implementation.</p>","PeriodicalId":17563,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.70439","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ACOUSTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate whether real-time artificial intelligence (AI) breast ultrasound (US) can identify a subgroup of breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) category 4A lesions without suspicious mammographic (MMG) findings in whom unnecessary biopsy may be safely avoided.

Methods: This retrospective analysis of single-center biopsy registry included 641 consecutive US BI-RADS 4A lesions that underwent vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. Before conducting biopsy, the lesions were reassessed using a real-time AI US system (CadAI-B®), and MMG findings were classified as suspicious or non-suspicious based on formal reports. Seven prespecified biopsy-decision strategies were evaluated, including 3 AI-only strategies, 3 mammography-gated AI strategies, and the current standard strategy of biopsy all BI-RADS 4A lesions. The primary outcomes were biopsy reduction rate, missed cancers, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy, with final pathology as the reference standard.

Results: Among 641 cases of US BI-RADS 4A lesions, 26 cases of malignancies (4.1%) were identified, including 14 cases of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), 11 cases of invasive ductal carcinomas, and 1 case of apocrine carcinoma. AI reassigned 289 cases of lesions (45.1%) to BI-RADS categories 1-3. AI-only biopsy-deferral strategies missed 30.8% and 38.5% of malignancies when biopsy was deferred for AI BI-RADS ≤2 and ≤3 lesions, respectively, with DCIS accounting for most missed cancers. In contrast, among lesions without suspicious MMG findings, no malignancies were observed in AI BI-RADS 1-3 lesions. The sequential strategy of deferring biopsy only for lesions with AI BI-RADS ≤3 and non-suspicious MMG findings reduced biopsies by 43.5% (279/641) while maintaining 100.0% sensitivity (95% CI, 87.1-100.0%) and increasing specificity to 45.4% (95% CI, 41.4-49.4%).

Conclusion: Real-time AI breast US alone could not safely support biopsy deferral in US BI-RADS 4A lesions. However, after suspicious MMG findings had been excluded, AI identified a low-risk subgroup in whom unnecessary biopsy could be substantially reduced without compromising cancer detection. These findings suggest that the clinical utility of real-time AI breast US lies in patients without suspicious MMG findings. Prospective multicenter validation is warranted before clinical implementation.

确定实时人工智能辅助超声在乳腺低怀疑恶性病变中的临床适应症。
目的:评估实时人工智能(AI)乳腺超声(US)是否可以识别一组乳腺成像报告和数据系统(BI-RADS) 4A类病变,而不存在可疑的乳房x线检查(MMG)发现,可以安全地避免不必要的活检。方法:回顾性分析单中心活检登记包括641个连续的美国BI-RADS 4A病变,这些病变接受了真空辅助乳腺活检。在进行活检之前,使用实时AI US系统(CadAI-B®)重新评估病变,并根据正式报告将MMG发现分类为可疑或非可疑。评估了7种预先指定的活检决策策略,包括3种人工智能策略,3种乳房x线摄影控制的人工智能策略,以及目前对所有BI-RADS 4A病变进行活检的标准策略。主要转归为活检减少率、漏诊率、敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值、阴性预测值、准确性,以最终病理为参考标准。结果:641例US BI-RADS 4A病变中,恶性肿瘤26例(4.1%),其中导管原位癌(DCIS) 14例,浸润性导管癌11例,大泌癌1例。AI将289例(45.1%)病变重新划分为BI-RADS分类1-3。当AI BI-RADS≤2和≤3病变延迟活检时,仅AI延迟活检策略的恶性肿瘤漏报率分别为30.8%和38.5%,其中DCIS占大多数漏报率。相比之下,在没有可疑MMG发现的病变中,AI BI-RADS 1-3病变未观察到恶性肿瘤。仅对AI BI-RADS≤3和非可疑MMG发现的病变推迟活检的顺序策略减少了43.5%(79% /641)的活检,同时保持了100.0%的敏感性(95% CI, 87.1-100.0%),并将特异性提高到45.4% (95% CI, 41.4-49.4%)。结论:单独的实时AI乳腺超声不能安全地支持美国BI-RADS 4A病变的活检延期。然而,在排除可疑的MMG发现后,AI确定了一个低风险亚组,在这个亚组中,不必要的活检可以大大减少,而不会影响癌症的检测。这些发现表明,实时人工智能乳腺超声的临床应用在于没有可疑MMG发现的患者。在临床应用前需要进行前瞻性多中心验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
205
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine (JUM) is dedicated to the rapid, accurate publication of original articles dealing with all aspects of medical ultrasound, particularly its direct application to patient care but also relevant basic science, advances in instrumentation, and biological effects. The journal is an official publication of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine and publishes articles in a variety of categories, including Original Research papers, Review Articles, Pictorial Essays, Technical Innovations, Case Series, Letters to the Editor, and more, from an international bevy of countries in a continual effort to showcase and promote advances in the ultrasound community. Represented through these efforts are a wide variety of disciplines of ultrasound, including, but not limited to: -Basic Science- Breast Ultrasound- Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound- Dermatology- Echocardiography- Elastography- Emergency Medicine- Fetal Echocardiography- Gastrointestinal Ultrasound- General and Abdominal Ultrasound- Genitourinary Ultrasound- Gynecologic Ultrasound- Head and Neck Ultrasound- High Frequency Clinical and Preclinical Imaging- Interventional-Intraoperative Ultrasound- Musculoskeletal Ultrasound- Neurosonology- Obstetric Ultrasound- Ophthalmologic Ultrasound- Pediatric Ultrasound- Point-of-Care Ultrasound- Public Policy- Superficial Structures- Therapeutic Ultrasound- Ultrasound Education- Ultrasound in Global Health- Urologic Ultrasound- Vascular Ultrasound
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书