Impact of a CAD system in a screen-film mammography screening program: a prospective study

Association of Clinician Diagnostic Performance With Machine Learning-Based Decision Support Systems: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

An increasing number of machine learning (ML)-based clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) are described in the medical literature, but this research focuses almost entirely on comparing CDSS directly with clinicians (human vs computer). Little is known about the outcomes of these systems when used as adjuncts to human decision-making (human vs human with computer).

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review to investigate the association between the interactive use of ML-based diagnostic CDSSs and clinician performance and to examine the extent of the CDSSs' human factors evaluation.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

A search of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and grey literature was conducted for the period between January 1, 2010, and May 31, 2019. Peer-reviewed studies published in English comparing human clinician performance with and without interactive use of an ML-based diagnostic CDSSs were included. All metrics used to assess human performance were considered as outcomes. The risk of bias was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) and Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies-Intervention (ROBINS-I). Narrative summaries were produced for the main outcomes. Given the heterogeneity of medical conditions, outcomes of interest, and evaluation metrics, no meta-analysis was performed.

FINDINGS

A total of 8112 studies were initially retrieved and 5154 abstracts were screened; of these, 37 studies met the inclusion criteria. The median number of participating clinicians was 4 (interquartile range, 3-8). Of the 107 results that reported statistical significance, 54 (50%) were increased by the use of CDSSs, 4 (4%) were decreased, and 49 (46%) showed no change or an unclear change. In the subgroup of studies carried out in representative clinical settings, no association between the use of ML-based diagnostic CDSSs and improved clinician performance could be observed. Interobserver agreement was the commonly reported outcome whose change was the most strongly associated with CDSS use. Four studies (11%) reported on user feedback, and, in all but 1 case, clinicians decided to override at least some of the algorithms' recommendations. Twenty-eight studies (76%) were rated as having a high risk of bias in at least 1 of the 4 QUADAS-2 core domains, and 6 studies (16%) were considered to be at serious or critical risk of bias using ROBINS-I.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This systematic review found only sparse evidence that the use of ML-based CDSSs is associated with improved clinician diagnostic performance. Most studies had a low number of participants, were at high or unclear risk of bias, and showed little or no consideration for human factors. Caution should be exercised when estimating the current potential of ML to improve human diagnostic performance, and more comprehensive evaluation should be conducted before deploying ML-based CDSSs in clinical settings. The results highlight the importance of considering supported human decisions as end points rather than merely the stand-alone CDSSs outputs.

Methods Used in Computer-Aided Diagnosis for Breast Cancer Detection Using Mammograms: A Review

According to the American Cancer Society's forecasts for 2019, there will be about 268,600 new cases in the United States with invasive breast cancer in women, about 62,930 new noninvasive cases, and about 41,760 death cases from breast cancer. As a result, there is a high demand for breast imaging specialists as indicated in a recent report for the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. One way to meet this demand is through developing Computer-Aided Diagnosis (CAD) systems for breast cancer detection and diagnosis using mammograms. This study aims to review recent advancements and developments in CAD systems for breast cancer detection and diagnosis using mammograms and to give an overview of the methods used in its steps starting from preprocessing and enhancement step and ending in classification step. The current level of performance for the CAD systems is encouraging but not enough to make CAD systems standalone detection and diagnose clinical systems. Unless the performance of CAD systems enhanced dramatically from its current level by enhancing the existing methods, exploiting new promising methods in pattern recognition like data augmentation in deep learning and exploiting the advances in computational power of computers, CAD systems will continue to be a second opinion clinical procedure.

The efficacy of using computer-aided detection (CAD) for detection of breast cancer in mammography screening: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Early detection of breast cancer (BC) is crucial in lowering the mortality.

PURPOSE

To present an overview of studies concerning computer-aided detection (CAD) in screening mammography for early detection of BC and compare diagnostic accuracy and recall rates (RR) of single reading (SR) with SR + CAD and double reading (DR) with SR + CAD.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

PRISMA guidelines were used as a review protocol. Articles on clinical trials concerning CAD for detection of BC in a screening population were included. The literature search resulted in 1522 records. A total of 1491 records were excluded by abstract and 18 were excluded by full text reading. A total of 13 articles were included.

RESULTS

All but two studies from the SR vs. SR + CAD group showed an increased sensitivity and/or cancer detection rate (CDR) when adding CAD. The DR vs. SR + CAD group showed no significant differences in sensitivity and CDR. Adding CAD to SR increased the RR and decreased the specificity in all but one study. For the DR vs. SR + CAD group only one study reported a significant difference in RR.

CONCLUSION

All but two studies showed an increase in RR, sensitivity and CDR when adding CAD to SR. Compared to DR no statistically significant differences in sensitivity or CDR were reported. Additional studies based on organized population-based screening programs, with longer follow-up time, high-volume readers, and digital mammography are needed to evaluate the efficacy of CAD.

Foundation and methodologies in computer-aided diagnosis systems for breast cancer detection

Breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer that affects women all over the world. Early detection and treatment of breast cancer could decline the mortality rate. Some issues such as technical reasons, which related to imaging quality and human error, increase misdiagnosis of breast cancer by radiologists. Computer-aided detection systems (CADs) are developed to overcome these restrictions and have been studied in many imaging modalities for breast cancer detection in recent years. The CAD systems improve radiologists' performance in finding and discriminating between the normal and abnormal tissues. These procedures are performed only as a double reader but the absolute decisions are still made by the radiologist. In this study, the recent CAD systems for breast cancer detection on different modalities such as mammography, ultrasound, MRI, and biopsy histopathological images are introduced. The foundation of CAD systems generally consist of four stages: Pre-processing, Segmentation, Feature extraction, and Classification. The approaches which applied to design different stages of CAD system are summarised. Advantages and disadvantages of different segmentation, feature extraction and classification techniques are listed. In addition, the impact of imbalanced datasets in classification outcomes and appropriate methods to solve these issues are discussed. As well as, performance evaluation metrics for various stages of breast cancer detection CAD systems are reviewed.

Is single reading with computer-aided detection (CAD) as good as double reading in mammography screening? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

In accordance with European guidelines, mammography screening comprises independent readings by two breast radiologists (double reading). CAD (computer-aided detection) has been suggested to complement or replace one of the two readers (single reading + CAD).The aim of this systematic review is to address the following question: Is the reading of mammographic x-ray images by a single breast radiologist together with CAD at least as accurate as double reading?

METHODS

The electronic literature search included the databases Pub Med, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library. Two independent reviewers assessed abstracts and full-text articles.

RESULTS

1049 abstracts were identified, of which 996 were excluded with reference to inclusion and exclusion criteria; 53 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Finally, four articles were included in the qualitative analysis, and one in a GRADE synthesis.

CONCLUSIONS

The scientific evidence is insufficient to determine whether the accuracy of single reading + CAD is at least equivalent to that obtained in standard practice, i.e. double reading where two breast radiologists independently read the mammographic images.