AI in breast screening mammography: breast screening readers' perspectives

AI-integrated Screening to Replace Double Reading of Mammograms: A Population-wide Accuracy and Feasibility Study

Mammography screening supported by deep learning-based artificial intelligence (AI) solutions can potentially reduce workload without compromising breast cancer detection accuracy, but the site of deployment in the workflow might be crucial. This retrospective study compared three simulated AI-integrated screening scenarios with standard double reading with arbitration in a sample of 249 402 mammograms from a representative screening population. A commercial AI system replaced the first reader (scenario 1: integrated AIfirst), the second reader (scenario 2: integrated AIsecond), or both readers for triaging of low- and high-risk cases (scenario 3: integrated AItriage). AI threshold values were chosen based partly on previous validation and setting the screen-read volume reduction at approximately 50% across scenarios. Detection accuracy measures were calculated. Compared with standard double reading, integrated AIfirst showed no evidence of a difference in accuracy metrics except for a higher arbitration rate (+0.99%, P < .001). Integrated AIsecond had lower sensitivity (-1.58%, P < .001), negative predictive value (NPV) (-0.01%, P < .001), and recall rate (-0.06%, P = .04) but a higher positive predictive value (PPV) (+0.03%, P < .001) and arbitration rate (+1.22%, P < .001). Integrated AItriage achieved higher sensitivity (+1.33%, P < .001), PPV (+0.36%, P = .03), and NPV (+0.01%, P < .001) but lower arbitration rate (-0.88%, P < .001). Replacing one or both readers with AI seems feasible; however, the site of application in the workflow can have clinically relevant effects on accuracy and workload. Keywords: Mammography, Breast, Neoplasms-Primary, Screening, Epidemiology, Diagnosis, Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) Supplemental material is available for this article. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license.

Population-wide evaluation of artificial intelligence and radiologist assessment of screening mammograms

OBJECTIVES

To validate an AI system for standalone breast cancer detection on an entire screening population in comparison to first-reading breast radiologists.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All mammography screenings performed between August 4, 2014, and August 15, 2018, in the Region of Southern Denmark with follow-up within 24 months were eligible. Screenings were assessed as normal or abnormal by breast radiologists through double reading with arbitration. For an AI decision of normal or abnormal, two AI-score cut-off points were applied by matching at mean sensitivity (AIsens) and specificity (AIspec) of first readers. Accuracy measures were sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and recall rate (RR).

RESULTS

The sample included 249,402 screenings (149,495 women) and 2033 breast cancers (72.6% screen-detected cancers, 27.4% interval cancers). AIsens had lower specificity (97.5% vs 97.7%; p < 0.0001) and PPV (17.5% vs 18.7%; p = 0.01) and a higher RR (3.0% vs 2.8%; p < 0.0001) than first readers. AIspec was comparable to first readers in terms of all accuracy measures. Both AIsens and AIspec detected significantly fewer screen-detected cancers (1166 (AIsens), 1156 (AIspec) vs 1252; p < 0.0001) but found more interval cancers compared to first readers (126 (AIsens), 117 (AIspec) vs 39; p < 0.0001) with varying types of cancers detected across multiple subgroups.

CONCLUSION

Standalone AI can detect breast cancer at an accuracy level equivalent to the standard of first readers when the AI threshold point was matched at first reader specificity. However, AI and first readers detected a different composition of cancers.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

Replacing first readers with AI with an appropriate cut-off score could be feasible. AI-detected cancers not detected by radiologists suggest a potential increase in the number of cancers detected if AI is implemented to support double reading within screening, although the clinicopathological characteristics of detected cancers would not change significantly.

KEY POINTS

• Standalone AI cancer detection was compared to first readers in a double-read mammography screening population. • Standalone AI matched at first reader specificity showed no statistically significant difference in overall accuracy but detected different cancers. • With an appropriate threshold, AI-integrated screening can increase the number of detected cancers with similar clinicopathological characteristics.

Familiarity, confidence and preference of artificial intelligence feedback and prompts by Australian breast cancer screening readers

Objectives This study explored the familiarity, perceptions and confidence of Australian radiology clinicians involved in reading screening mammograms, regarding artificial intelligence (AI) applications in breast cancer detection. Methods Sixty-five radiologists, breast physicians and radiology trainees participated in an online survey that consisted of 23 multiple choice questions asking about their experience and familiarity with AI products. Furthermore, the survey asked about their confidence in using AI outputs and their preference for AI modes applied in a breast screening context. Participants' responses to questions were compared using Pearson's χ 2 test. Bonferroni-adjusted significance tests were used for pairwise comparisons. Results Fifty-five percent of respondents had experience with AI in their workplaces, with automatic density measurement powered by machine learning being the most familiar AI product (69.4%). The top AI outputs with the highest ranks of perceived confidence were 'Displaying suspicious areas on mammograms with the percentage of cancer possibility' (67.8%) and 'Automatic mammogram classification (normal, benign, cancer, uncertain)' (64.6%). Radiology and breast physicians preferred using AI as second-reader mode (75.4% saying 'somewhat happy' to 'extremely happy') over triage (47.7%), pre-screening and first-reader modes (both with 26.2%) (P  < 0.001). Conclusion The majority of screen readers expressed increased confidence in utilising AI for highlighting suspicious areas on mammograms and for automatically classifying mammograms. They considered AI as an optimal second-reader mode being the most ideal use in a screening program. The findings provide valuable insights into the familiarities and expectations of radiologists and breast clinicians for the AI products that can enhance the effectiveness of the breast cancer screening programs, benefitting both healthcare professionals and patients alike.

Patients' Perceptions and Attitudes to the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Breast Cancer Diagnosis: A Narrative Review

Breast cancer remains the most prevalent cancer among women worldwide, necessitating advancements in diagnostic methods. The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into mammography has shown promise in enhancing diagnostic accuracy. However, understanding patient perspectives, particularly considering the psychological impact of breast cancer diagnoses, is crucial. This narrative review synthesizes literature from 2000 to 2023 to examine breast cancer patients' attitudes towards AI in breast imaging, focusing on trust, acceptance, and demographic influences on these views. Methodologically, we employed a systematic literature search across databases such as PubMed, Embase, Medline, and Scopus, selecting studies that provided insights into patients' perceptions of AI in diagnostics. Our review included a sample of seven key studies after rigorous screening, reflecting varied patient trust and acceptance levels towards AI. Overall, we found a clear preference among patients for AI to augment rather than replace the diagnostic process, emphasizing the necessity of radiologists' expertise in conjunction with AI to enhance decision-making accuracy. This paper highlights the importance of aligning AI implementation in clinical settings with patient needs and expectations, emphasizing the need for human interaction in healthcare. Our findings advocate for a model where AI augments the diagnostic process, underlining the necessity for educational efforts to mitigate concerns and enhance patient trust in AI-enhanced diagnostics.

Breast cancer detection accuracy of AI in an entire screening population: a retrospective, multicentre study

BACKGROUND

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are proposed as a replacement of the first reader in double reading within mammography screening. We aimed to assess cancer detection accuracy of an AI system in a Danish screening population.

METHODS

We retrieved a consecutive screening cohort from the Region of Southern Denmark including all participating women between Aug 4, 2014, and August 15, 2018. Screening mammograms were processed by a commercial AI system and detection accuracy was evaluated in two scenarios, Standalone AI and AI-integrated screening replacing first reader, with first reader and double reading with arbitration (combined reading) as comparators, respectively. Two AI-score cut-off points were applied by matching at mean first reader sensitivity (AIsens) and specificity (AIspec). Reference standard was histopathology-proven breast cancer or cancer-free follow-up within 24 months. Coprimary endpoints were sensitivity and specificity, and secondary endpoints were positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), recall rate, and arbitration rate. Accuracy estimates were calculated using McNemar's test or exact binomial test.

RESULTS

Out of 272,008 screening mammograms from 158,732 women, 257,671 (94.7%) with adequate image data were included in the final analyses. Sensitivity and specificity were 63.7% (95% CI 61.6%-65.8%) and 97.8% (97.7-97.8%) for first reader, and 73.9% (72.0-75.8%) and 97.9% (97.9-98.0%) for combined reading, respectively. Standalone AIsens showed a lower specificity (-1.3%) and PPV (-6.1%), and a higher recall rate (+ 1.3%) compared to first reader (p < 0.0001 for all), while Standalone AIspec had a lower sensitivity (-5.1%; p < 0.0001), PPV (-1.3%; p = 0.01) and NPV (-0.04%; p = 0.0002). Compared to combined reading, Integrated AIsens achieved higher sensitivity (+ 2.3%; p = 0.0004), but lower specificity (-0.6%) and PPV (-3.9%) as well as higher recall rate (+ 0.6%) and arbitration rate (+ 2.2%; p < 0.0001 for all). Integrated AIspec showed no significant difference in any outcome measures apart from a slightly higher arbitration rate (p < 0.0001). Subgroup analyses showed higher detection of interval cancers by Standalone AI and Integrated AI at both thresholds (p < 0.0001 for all) with a varying composition of detected cancers across multiple subgroups of tumour characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Replacing first reader in double reading with an AI could be feasible but choosing an appropriate AI threshold is crucial to maintaining cancer detection accuracy and workload.

Norwegian radiologists' expectations of artificial intelligence in mammographic screening - A cross-sectional survey

PURPOSE

To explore Norwegian breast radiologists' expectations of adding artificial intelligence (AI) in the interpretation procedure of screening mammograms.

METHODS

All breast radiologists involved in interpretation of screening mammograms in BreastScreen Norway during 2021 and 2022 (n = 98) were invited to take part in this anonymous cross-sectional survey about use of AI in mammographic screening. The questionnaire included background information of the respondents, their expectations, considerations of biases, and ethical and social implications of implementing AI in screen reading. Data was collected digitally and analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

The response rate was 61% (60/98), and 67% (40/60) of the respondents were women. Sixty percent (36/60) reported ≥10 years' experience in screen reading, while 82% (49/60) reported no or limited experience with AI in health care. Eighty-two percent of the respondents were positive to explore AI in the interpretation procedure in mammographic screening. When used as decision support, 68% (41/60) expected AI to increase the radiologists' sensitivity for cancer detection. As potential challenges, 55% (33/60) reported lack of trust in the AI system and 45% (27/60) reported discrepancy between radiologists and AI systems as possible challenges. The risk of automation bias was considered high among 47% (28/60). Reduced time spent reading mammograms was rated as a potential benefit by 70% (42/60).

CONCLUSION

The radiologists reported positive expectations of AI in the interpretation procedure of screening mammograms. Efforts to minimize the risk of automation bias and increase trust in the AI systems are important before and during future implementation of the tool.