Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Digital Imaging 4/2019

Open Access 01-08-2019 | Breast Cancer

Improved Cancer Detection Using Artificial Intelligence: a Retrospective Evaluation of Missed Cancers on Mammography

Authors: Alyssa T. Watanabe, Vivian Lim, Hoanh X. Vu, Richard Chim, Eric Weise, Jenna Liu, William G. Bradley, Christopher E. Comstock

Published in: Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine | Issue 4/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

To determine whether cmAssist™, an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided detection (AI-CAD) algorithm, can be used to improve radiologists’ sensitivity in breast cancer screening and detection. A blinded retrospective study was performed with a panel of seven radiologists using a cancer-enriched data set from 122 patients that included 90 false-negative mammograms obtained up to 5.8 years prior to diagnosis and 32 BIRADS 1 and 2 patients with a 2-year follow-up of negative diagnosis. The mammograms were performed between February 7, 2008 (earliest) and January 8, 2016 (latest), and were all originally interpreted as negative in conjunction with R2 ImageChecker CAD, version 10.0. In this study, the readers analyzed the 122 studies before and after review of cmAssist™, an AI-CAD software for mammography. The statistical significance of our findings was evaluated using Student’s t test and bootstrap statistical analysis. There was a substantial and significant improvement in radiologist accuracy with use of cmAssist, as demonstrated in the 7.2% increase in the area-under-the-curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve with two-sided p value < 0.01 for the reader group. All radiologists showed a significant improvement in their cancer detection rate (CDR) with the use of cmAssist (two-sided p value = 0.030, confidence interval = 95%). The readers detected between 25 and 71% (mean 51%) of the early cancers without assistance. With cmAssist, the overall reader CDR was 41 to 76% (mean 62%). The percentage increase in CDR for the reader panel was significant, ranging from 6 to 64% (mean 27%) with the use of cmAssist. There was less than 1% increase in the readers’ false-positive recalls with use of cmAssist. With the use of cmAssist TM, there was a substantial and statistically significant improvement in radiologists’ accuracy and sensitivity for detection of cancers that were originally missed. The percentage increase in CDR for the radiologists in the reader panel ranged from 6 to 64% (mean 27%) with the use of cmAssist, with negligible increase in false-positive recalls.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Tabár L, Vitak B, Hsiu-Hsi Chen T, Ming-Fang Yen A, Cohen A, Tot T, Yueh-Hsia Chiu S, Li-Sheng Chen S, Ching-Yuan Fann J, Rosell J, Fohlin H, Smith RA, Duffy SW: Swedish two-county trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades. Radiology 260:658–663, 2011CrossRefPubMed Tabár L, Vitak B, Hsiu-Hsi Chen T, Ming-Fang Yen A, Cohen A, Tot T, Yueh-Hsia Chiu S, Li-Sheng Chen S, Ching-Yuan Fann J, Rosell J, Fohlin H, Smith RA, Duffy SW: Swedish two-county trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades. Radiology 260:658–663, 2011CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Tabár L, Gad A, Holmberg LH, Ljungquist U, Kopparberg County Project Group, Fagerberg CJG, Baldetorp L, Gröntoft O, Lundström B, Månson JC, Ostergotland County Project Group, Eklund G, Day NE, Pettersson F: REDUCTION IN MORTALITY FROM BREAST CANCER AFTER MASS SCREENING WITH MAMMOGRAPHY: Randomised Trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Lancet 325:829–832, 1985. Tabár L, Gad A, Holmberg LH, Ljungquist U, Kopparberg County Project Group, Fagerberg CJG, Baldetorp L, Gröntoft O, Lundström B, Månson JC, Ostergotland County Project Group, Eklund G, Day NE, Pettersson F: REDUCTION IN MORTALITY FROM BREAST CANCER AFTER MASS SCREENING WITH MAMMOGRAPHY: Randomised Trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Lancet 325:829–832, 1985.
3.
go back to reference Warren Burhenne LJ, Wood SA, D'Orsi CJ, Feig SA, Kopans DB, O'Shaughnessy KF, Sickles EA, Tabar L, Vyborny CJ, Castellino RA: Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography. Radiology 215:554–562, 2000CrossRefPubMed Warren Burhenne LJ, Wood SA, D'Orsi CJ, Feig SA, Kopans DB, O'Shaughnessy KF, Sickles EA, Tabar L, Vyborny CJ, Castellino RA: Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography. Radiology 215:554–562, 2000CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Siu AL, on behalf of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: Screening for breast cancer: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 164:279–296, 2016CrossRefPubMed Siu AL, on behalf of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: Screening for breast cancer: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 164:279–296, 2016CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Bargalló X, Santamaría G, Del Amo M, Arguis P, Ríos J, Grau J, Burrel M, Cores E, Velasco M: Single reading with computer-aided detection performed by selected radiologists in a breast cancer screening program. European Journal of Radiology 83:2019–2023, 2014CrossRefPubMed Bargalló X, Santamaría G, Del Amo M, Arguis P, Ríos J, Grau J, Burrel M, Cores E, Velasco M: Single reading with computer-aided detection performed by selected radiologists in a breast cancer screening program. European Journal of Radiology 83:2019–2023, 2014CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Birdwell RL: The preponderance of evidence supports computer-aided detection for screening mammography. Radiology 253:9–16, 2009CrossRefPubMed Birdwell RL: The preponderance of evidence supports computer-aided detection for screening mammography. Radiology 253:9–16, 2009CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Lehman CD, Wellman RD, Buist DS, Kerlikowske K, Tosteson AN, Miglioretti DL: Diagnostic accuracy of digital screening mammography with and without computer-aided detection. JAMA Intern Med. 175:1828–1837, 2015CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Lehman CD, Wellman RD, Buist DS, Kerlikowske K, Tosteson AN, Miglioretti DL: Diagnostic accuracy of digital screening mammography with and without computer-aided detection. JAMA Intern Med. 175:1828–1837, 2015CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
go back to reference NCI-funded Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (P01CA154292, U54CA163303, U01CA86076, U01CA63731, U01CA63740, U01CA70040, U01CA86082, U01CA70013). Downloaded 08/07/2018 from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Web site - http://www.bcsc-research.org/. NCI-funded Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (P01CA154292, U54CA163303, U01CA86076, U01CA63731, U01CA63740, U01CA70040, U01CA86082, U01CA70013). Downloaded 08/07/2018 from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Web site - http://​www.​bcsc-research.​org/​.
10.
go back to reference Efron B: Bootstrap method: another look at the jackknife. Ann. Statist 7:1–26, 1979CrossRef Efron B: Bootstrap method: another look at the jackknife. Ann. Statist 7:1–26, 1979CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Harvey JA, Fajardo LL, Innis CA: Previous mammograms in patients with impalpable breast carcinoma: retrospective vs blinded interpretation. 1993 ARRS President’s Award. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 161:1167–1172, 1993, 1993CrossRefPubMed Harvey JA, Fajardo LL, Innis CA: Previous mammograms in patients with impalpable breast carcinoma: retrospective vs blinded interpretation. 1993 ARRS President’s Award. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 161:1167–1172, 1993, 1993CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Beam CA, Sullivan DC, Layde PM: Effect of human variability on independent double reading in screening mammography. Acad. Radiol. 3:891–897, 1996CrossRefPubMed Beam CA, Sullivan DC, Layde PM: Effect of human variability on independent double reading in screening mammography. Acad. Radiol. 3:891–897, 1996CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Cole EB, Zhang Z, Marques HS, Edward Hendrick R, Yaffe MJ, Pisano ED: Impact of computer-aided detection systems on radiologist accuracy with digital mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 203:909–916, 2014CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Cole EB, Zhang Z, Marques HS, Edward Hendrick R, Yaffe MJ, Pisano ED: Impact of computer-aided detection systems on radiologist accuracy with digital mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 203:909–916, 2014CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
go back to reference Gur D, Bandos AI, Cohen CS, Hakim CM, Hardesty LA, Ganott MA, Perrin RL, Poller WR, Shah R, Sumkin JH, Wallace LP, Rockette HE: The “Laboratory” Effect: Comparing Radiologists’ Performance and Variability during Prospective Clinical and Laboratory Mammography Interpretations. Radiology 249:47–53, 2008CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Gur D, Bandos AI, Cohen CS, Hakim CM, Hardesty LA, Ganott MA, Perrin RL, Poller WR, Shah R, Sumkin JH, Wallace LP, Rockette HE: The “Laboratory” Effect: Comparing Radiologists’ Performance and Variability during Prospective Clinical and Laboratory Mammography Interpretations. Radiology 249:47–53, 2008CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Improved Cancer Detection Using Artificial Intelligence: a Retrospective Evaluation of Missed Cancers on Mammography
Authors
Alyssa T. Watanabe
Vivian Lim
Hoanh X. Vu
Richard Chim
Eric Weise
Jenna Liu
William G. Bradley
Christopher E. Comstock
Publication date
01-08-2019
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine / Issue 4/2019
Print ISSN: 2948-2925
Electronic ISSN: 2948-2933
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-019-00192-5

Other articles of this Issue 4/2019

Journal of Digital Imaging 4/2019 Go to the issue