基于人工智能的乳房x光检查肿瘤大小测量:与病理一致,并与人类读者在多种成像方式下的评估进行比较。

IF 9.7 1区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Mi-Ri Kwon, Sung Hun Kim, Ga Eun Park, Han Song Mun, Bong Joo Kang, Yun Tae Kim, Inyoung Yoon
{"title":"基于人工智能的乳房x光检查肿瘤大小测量:与病理一致,并与人类读者在多种成像方式下的评估进行比较。","authors":"Mi-Ri Kwon, Sung Hun Kim, Ga Eun Park, Han Song Mun, Bong Joo Kang, Yun Tae Kim, Inyoung Yoon","doi":"10.1007/s11547-025-02033-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the agreement between artificial intelligence (AI)-based tumor size measurements of breast cancer and the final pathology and compare these results with those of other imaging modalities.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>This retrospective study included 925 women (mean age, 55.3 years ± 11.6) with 936 breast cancers, who underwent digital mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging before breast cancer surgery. AI-based tumor size measurement was performed on post-processed mammographic images, outlining areas with AI abnormality scores of 10, 50, and 90%. Absolute agreement between AI-based tumor sizes, image modalities, and histopathology was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analysis. Concordant and discordant cases between AI measurements and histopathologic examinations were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Tumor size with an abnormality score of 50% showed the highest agreement with histopathologic examination (ICC = 0.54, 95% confidential interval [CI]: 0.49-0.59), showing comparable agreement with mammography (ICC = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.48-0.60, p = 0.40). For ductal carcinoma in situ and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive cancers, AI revealed a higher agreement than that of mammography (ICC = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.67-0.84 and ICC = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.52-0.85). Overall, 52.0% (487/936) of cases were discordant, with these cases more commonly observed in younger patients with dense breasts, multifocal malignancies, lower abnormality scores, and different imaging characteristics.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>AI-based tumor size measurements with abnormality scores of 50% showed moderate agreement with histopathology but demonstrated size discordance in more than half of the cases. While comparable to mammography, its limitations emphasize the need for further refinement and research.</p>","PeriodicalId":20817,"journal":{"name":"Radiologia Medica","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Artificial intelligence-based tumor size measurement on mammography: agreement with pathology and comparison with human readers' assessments across multiple imaging modalities.\",\"authors\":\"Mi-Ri Kwon, Sung Hun Kim, Ga Eun Park, Han Song Mun, Bong Joo Kang, Yun Tae Kim, Inyoung Yoon\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11547-025-02033-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the agreement between artificial intelligence (AI)-based tumor size measurements of breast cancer and the final pathology and compare these results with those of other imaging modalities.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>This retrospective study included 925 women (mean age, 55.3 years ± 11.6) with 936 breast cancers, who underwent digital mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging before breast cancer surgery. AI-based tumor size measurement was performed on post-processed mammographic images, outlining areas with AI abnormality scores of 10, 50, and 90%. Absolute agreement between AI-based tumor sizes, image modalities, and histopathology was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analysis. Concordant and discordant cases between AI measurements and histopathologic examinations were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Tumor size with an abnormality score of 50% showed the highest agreement with histopathologic examination (ICC = 0.54, 95% confidential interval [CI]: 0.49-0.59), showing comparable agreement with mammography (ICC = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.48-0.60, p = 0.40). For ductal carcinoma in situ and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive cancers, AI revealed a higher agreement than that of mammography (ICC = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.67-0.84 and ICC = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.52-0.85). Overall, 52.0% (487/936) of cases were discordant, with these cases more commonly observed in younger patients with dense breasts, multifocal malignancies, lower abnormality scores, and different imaging characteristics.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>AI-based tumor size measurements with abnormality scores of 50% showed moderate agreement with histopathology but demonstrated size discordance in more than half of the cases. While comparable to mammography, its limitations emphasize the need for further refinement and research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20817,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Radiologia Medica\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Radiologia Medica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-025-02033-8\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiologia Medica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-025-02033-8","RegionNum":1,"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

摘要

目的:评估基于人工智能(AI)的乳腺癌肿瘤大小测量与最终病理之间的一致性,并将这些结果与其他成像方式的结果进行比较。材料和方法:本回顾性研究纳入925名女性(平均年龄55.3岁±11.6岁)936例乳腺癌患者,在乳腺癌手术前接受数字化乳房x线摄影、乳腺超声和磁共振成像检查。基于人工智能的肿瘤大小测量在后处理的乳房x线图像上进行,列出人工智能异常评分为10,50和90%的区域。使用类内相关系数(ICC)分析评估基于人工智能的肿瘤大小、图像模式和组织病理学之间的绝对一致性。比较人工智能测量与组织病理学检查的一致性和不一致性。结果:异常评分为50%的肿瘤大小与组织病理学检查的一致性最高(ICC = 0.54, 95%可信区间[CI]: 0.49-0.59),与乳房x光检查的一致性相当(ICC = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.48-0.60, p = 0.40)。对于导管原位癌和人表皮生长因子受体2阳性癌症,人工智能显示的一致性高于乳房x光检查(ICC = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.67-0.84, ICC = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.52-0.85)。总体而言,52.0%(487/936)的病例不一致,这些病例多见于乳腺致密、多灶性恶性肿瘤、异常评分较低、影像学特征不同的年轻患者。结论:基于人工智能的肿瘤大小测量异常评分为50%,与组织病理学有中等程度的一致,但在一半以上的病例中显示大小不一致。虽然与乳房x光检查相当,但其局限性强调需要进一步改进和研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Artificial intelligence-based tumor size measurement on mammography: agreement with pathology and comparison with human readers' assessments across multiple imaging modalities.

Purpose: To evaluate the agreement between artificial intelligence (AI)-based tumor size measurements of breast cancer and the final pathology and compare these results with those of other imaging modalities.

Material and methods: This retrospective study included 925 women (mean age, 55.3 years ± 11.6) with 936 breast cancers, who underwent digital mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging before breast cancer surgery. AI-based tumor size measurement was performed on post-processed mammographic images, outlining areas with AI abnormality scores of 10, 50, and 90%. Absolute agreement between AI-based tumor sizes, image modalities, and histopathology was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analysis. Concordant and discordant cases between AI measurements and histopathologic examinations were compared.

Results: Tumor size with an abnormality score of 50% showed the highest agreement with histopathologic examination (ICC = 0.54, 95% confidential interval [CI]: 0.49-0.59), showing comparable agreement with mammography (ICC = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.48-0.60, p = 0.40). For ductal carcinoma in situ and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive cancers, AI revealed a higher agreement than that of mammography (ICC = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.67-0.84 and ICC = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.52-0.85). Overall, 52.0% (487/936) of cases were discordant, with these cases more commonly observed in younger patients with dense breasts, multifocal malignancies, lower abnormality scores, and different imaging characteristics.

Conclusion: AI-based tumor size measurements with abnormality scores of 50% showed moderate agreement with histopathology but demonstrated size discordance in more than half of the cases. While comparable to mammography, its limitations emphasize the need for further refinement and research.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Radiologia Medica
Radiologia Medica 医学-核医学
CiteScore
14.10
自引率
7.90%
发文量
133
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Felice Perussia founded La radiologia medica in 1914. It is a peer-reviewed journal and serves as the official journal of the Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology (SIRM). The primary purpose of the journal is to disseminate information related to Radiology, especially advancements in diagnostic imaging and related disciplines. La radiologia medica welcomes original research on both fundamental and clinical aspects of modern radiology, with a particular focus on diagnostic and interventional imaging techniques. It also covers topics such as radiotherapy, nuclear medicine, radiobiology, health physics, and artificial intelligence in the context of clinical implications. The journal includes various types of contributions such as original articles, review articles, editorials, short reports, and letters to the editor. With an esteemed Editorial Board and a selection of insightful reports, the journal is an indispensable resource for radiologists and professionals in related fields. Ultimately, La radiologia medica aims to serve as a platform for international collaboration and knowledge sharing within the radiological community.
×
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