Purpose: To evaluate the benefits of an artificial intelligence (AI)–based tool for two-dimensional mammography in the breast cancer detection process. Materials and Methods: In this multireader, multicase retrospective study, 14 radiologists assessed a dataset of 240 digital mammography images, acquired between 2013 and 2016, using a counterbalance design in which half of the dataset was read without AI and the other half with the help of AI during a first session and vice versa during a second session, which was separated from the first by a washout period. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and reading time were assessed as endpoints. Results: The average AUC across readers was 0.769 (95% CI: 0.724, 0.814) without AI and 0.797 (95% CI: 0.754, 0.840) with AI. The average difference in AUC was 0.028 (95% CI: 0.002, 0.055, P =.035). Average sensitivity was increased by 0.033 when using AI support (P =.021). Reading time changed dependently to the AI-tool score. For low likelihood of malignancy (, 2.5%), the time was about the same in the first reading session and slightly decreased in the second reading session. For higher likelihood of malignancy, the reading time was on average increased with the use of AI. Conclusion: This clinical investigation demonstrated that the concurrent use of this AI tool improved the diagnostic performance of radiologists in the detection of breast cancer without prolonging their workflow.

Improving breast cancer detection accuracy of mammography with the concurrent use of an artificial intelligence tool

Pacilè S.;
2020-01-01

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the benefits of an artificial intelligence (AI)–based tool for two-dimensional mammography in the breast cancer detection process. Materials and Methods: In this multireader, multicase retrospective study, 14 radiologists assessed a dataset of 240 digital mammography images, acquired between 2013 and 2016, using a counterbalance design in which half of the dataset was read without AI and the other half with the help of AI during a first session and vice versa during a second session, which was separated from the first by a washout period. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and reading time were assessed as endpoints. Results: The average AUC across readers was 0.769 (95% CI: 0.724, 0.814) without AI and 0.797 (95% CI: 0.754, 0.840) with AI. The average difference in AUC was 0.028 (95% CI: 0.002, 0.055, P =.035). Average sensitivity was increased by 0.033 when using AI support (P =.021). Reading time changed dependently to the AI-tool score. For low likelihood of malignancy (, 2.5%), the time was about the same in the first reading session and slightly decreased in the second reading session. For higher likelihood of malignancy, the reading time was on average increased with the use of AI. Conclusion: This clinical investigation demonstrated that the concurrent use of this AI tool improved the diagnostic performance of radiologists in the detection of breast cancer without prolonging their workflow.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11368/3105194
 Avviso

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 93
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 77
social impact