Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 10/2022

24-06-2022 | Mammography | Breast

AI-CAD for differentiating lesions presenting as calcifications only on mammography: outcome analysis incorporating the ACR BI-RADS descriptors for calcifications

Authors: Jiyoung Yoon, Hye Sun Lee, Min Jung Kim, Vivian Youngjean Park, Eun-Kyung Kim, Jung Hyun Yoon

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 10/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate how AI-CAD triages calcifications and to compare its performance to an experienced breast radiologist.

Methods

Among routine mammography performed between June 2016 and May 2018, 535 lesions detected as calcifications only on mammography in 500 women (mean age, 48.8 years) that were additionally interpreted with additional magnification views were included in this study. One dedicated breast radiologist retrospectively reviewed the magnification mammograms to assess morphology, distribution, and final assessment category according to ACR BI-RADS. AI-CAD analyzed routine mammograms providing AI-CAD marks and corresponding AI-CAD scores (ranging from 0 to 100%), for which values ≥ 10% were considered positive. Ground truth in terms of malignancy or benignity was confirmed with a histopathologic diagnosis or at least 1 year of imaging follow - up.

Results

Of the 535 calcifications, 215 (40.2%) were malignant. Calcifications with positive AI-CAD scores showed significantly higher PPVs compared to calcifications with negative scores for all morphology (all p < 0.05). PPVs were significantly higher in calcifications with positive AI-CAD scores compared to those with negative scores for BI-RADS 3, 4a, or 4b assessments (all p < 0.05). AI-CAD and the experienced radiologist did not show significant difference in diagnostic performance; sensitivity 92.1% vs 95.4% (p = 0.125), specificity 71.9% vs 72.5% (p = 0.842), and accuracy 80.0% vs 81.7% (p = 0.413).

Conclusion

Among calcifications with same morphology or BI-RADS assessment, those with positive AI-CAD scores had significantly higher PPVs. AI-CAD showed similar diagnostic performances to the experienced radiologist for calcifications detected on mammography.

Key Points

• Among calcifications with same morphology or BI-RADS assessment, those with positive AI-CAD scores had significantly higher PPVs.
• AI-CAD showed similar diagnostic performance to an experienced radiologist in assessing lesions detected as calcifications only on mammography.
• Among malignant calcifications, calcifications with positive AI-CAD scores showed higher rates of invasive cancers than calcifications with negative scores (all p > 0.05).
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A (2018) Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 68:394–424PubMed Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A (2018) Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 68:394–424PubMed
2.
go back to reference Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening (2012) The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet 380:1778–1786 Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening (2012) The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet 380:1778–1786
3.
go back to reference Bleyer A, Welch HG (2012) Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence. N Engl J Med 367:1998–2005CrossRef Bleyer A, Welch HG (2012) Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence. N Engl J Med 367:1998–2005CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Drukteinis JS, Mooney BP, Flowers CI, Gatenby RA (2013) Beyond mammography: new frontiers in breast cancer screening. Am J Med 126:472–479CrossRef Drukteinis JS, Mooney BP, Flowers CI, Gatenby RA (2013) Beyond mammography: new frontiers in breast cancer screening. Am J Med 126:472–479CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Taplin SH, Rutter CM, Lehman CD (2006) Testing the effect of computer-assisted detection on interpretive performance in screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:1475–1482CrossRef Taplin SH, Rutter CM, Lehman CD (2006) Testing the effect of computer-assisted detection on interpretive performance in screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:1475–1482CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Ko JM, Nicholas MJ, Mendel JB, Slanetz PJ (2006) Prospective assessment of computer-aided detection in interpretation of screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:1483–1491CrossRef Ko JM, Nicholas MJ, Mendel JB, Slanetz PJ (2006) Prospective assessment of computer-aided detection in interpretation of screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:1483–1491CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Henriksen EL, Carlsen JF, Vejborg IM, Nielsen MB, Lauridsen CA (2019) The efficacy of using computer-aided detection (CAD) for detection of breast cancer in mammography screening: a systematic review. Acta Radiol 60:13–18CrossRef Henriksen EL, Carlsen JF, Vejborg IM, Nielsen MB, Lauridsen CA (2019) The efficacy of using computer-aided detection (CAD) for detection of breast cancer in mammography screening: a systematic review. Acta Radiol 60:13–18CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Salim M, Wåhlin E, Dembrower K et al (2020) External evaluation of 3 commercial artificial intelligence algorithms for independent assessment of screening mammograms. JAMA Oncol 6:1581–1588CrossRef Salim M, Wåhlin E, Dembrower K et al (2020) External evaluation of 3 commercial artificial intelligence algorithms for independent assessment of screening mammograms. JAMA Oncol 6:1581–1588CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Rodriguez-Ruiz A, Lång K, Gubern-Merida A et al (2019) Stand-alone artificial intelligence for breast cancer detection in mammography: comparison with 101 radiologists. J Natl Cancer Inst 111:916–922CrossRef Rodriguez-Ruiz A, Lång K, Gubern-Merida A et al (2019) Stand-alone artificial intelligence for breast cancer detection in mammography: comparison with 101 radiologists. J Natl Cancer Inst 111:916–922CrossRef
10.
go back to reference McKinney SM, Sieniek M, Godbole V et al (2020) International evaluation of an AI system for breast cancer screening. Nature 577:89–94CrossRef McKinney SM, Sieniek M, Godbole V et al (2020) International evaluation of an AI system for breast cancer screening. Nature 577:89–94CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Morgan MP, Cooke MM, McCarthy GM (2005) Microcalcifications associated with breast cancer: an epiphenomenon or biologically significant feature of selected tumors? J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 10:181–187CrossRef Morgan MP, Cooke MM, McCarthy GM (2005) Microcalcifications associated with breast cancer: an epiphenomenon or biologically significant feature of selected tumors? J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 10:181–187CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Lee AY, Wisner DJ, Aminololama-Shakeri S et al (2017) Inter-reader variability in the use of BI-RADS descriptors for suspicious findings on diagnostic mammography: a multi-institution study of 10 academic radiologists. Acad Radiol 24:60–66CrossRef Lee AY, Wisner DJ, Aminololama-Shakeri S et al (2017) Inter-reader variability in the use of BI-RADS descriptors for suspicious findings on diagnostic mammography: a multi-institution study of 10 academic radiologists. Acad Radiol 24:60–66CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Bent CK, Bassett LW, D'Orsi CJ, Sayre JW (2010) The positive predictive value of BI-RADS microcalcification descriptors and final assessment categories. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:1378–1383CrossRef Bent CK, Bassett LW, D'Orsi CJ, Sayre JW (2010) The positive predictive value of BI-RADS microcalcification descriptors and final assessment categories. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:1378–1383CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Berg WA, Arnoldus CL, Teferra E, Bhargavan M (2001) Biopsy of amorphous breast calcifications: pathologic outcome and yield at stereotactic biopsy. Radiology 221:495–503CrossRef Berg WA, Arnoldus CL, Teferra E, Bhargavan M (2001) Biopsy of amorphous breast calcifications: pathologic outcome and yield at stereotactic biopsy. Radiology 221:495–503CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Liu H, Chen Y, Zhang Y et al (2021) A deep learning model integrating mammography and clinical factors facilitates the malignancy prediction of BI-RADS 4 microcalcifications in breast cancer screening. Eur Radiol 31:5902–5912CrossRef Liu H, Chen Y, Zhang Y et al (2021) A deep learning model integrating mammography and clinical factors facilitates the malignancy prediction of BI-RADS 4 microcalcifications in breast cancer screening. Eur Radiol 31:5902–5912CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Wang J, Yang X, Cai H, Tan W, Jin C, Li L (2016) Discrimination of breast cancer with microcalcifications on mammography by deep learning. Sci Rep 6:27327CrossRef Wang J, Yang X, Cai H, Tan W, Jin C, Li L (2016) Discrimination of breast cancer with microcalcifications on mammography by deep learning. Sci Rep 6:27327CrossRef
17.
go back to reference American College of Radiology (2013) ACR BI-RADS atlas: breast imaging reporting and data system, 5th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston American College of Radiology (2013) ACR BI-RADS atlas: breast imaging reporting and data system, 5th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston
18.
go back to reference Kim HE, Kim HH, Han BK et al (2020) Changes in cancer detection and false-positive recall in mammography using artificial intelligence: a retrospective, multireader study. Lancet Digit Health 2:e138–e148CrossRef Kim HE, Kim HH, Han BK et al (2020) Changes in cancer detection and false-positive recall in mammography using artificial intelligence: a retrospective, multireader study. Lancet Digit Health 2:e138–e148CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Kim SY, Kim HY, Kim EK, Kim MJ, Moon HJ, Yoon JH (2015) Evaluation of malignancy risk stratification of microcalcifications detected on mammography: a study based on the 5th edition of BI-RADS. Ann Surg Oncol 22:2895–2901CrossRef Kim SY, Kim HY, Kim EK, Kim MJ, Moon HJ, Yoon JH (2015) Evaluation of malignancy risk stratification of microcalcifications detected on mammography: a study based on the 5th edition of BI-RADS. Ann Surg Oncol 22:2895–2901CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Choi WJ, Han K, Shin HJ, Lee J, Kim EK, Yoon JH (2021) Calcifications with suspicious morphology at mammography: should they all be considered with the same clinical significance? Eur Radiol 31:2529–2538CrossRef Choi WJ, Han K, Shin HJ, Lee J, Kim EK, Yoon JH (2021) Calcifications with suspicious morphology at mammography: should they all be considered with the same clinical significance? Eur Radiol 31:2529–2538CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Leisenring W, Pepe MS, Longton G (1997) A marginal regression modelling framework for evaluating medical diagnostic tests. Stat Med 16:1263–1281CrossRef Leisenring W, Pepe MS, Longton G (1997) A marginal regression modelling framework for evaluating medical diagnostic tests. Stat Med 16:1263–1281CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Lehman CD, Arao RF, Sprague BL et al (2017) National performance benchmarks for modern screening digital mammography: update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Radiology 283:49–58CrossRef Lehman CD, Arao RF, Sprague BL et al (2017) National performance benchmarks for modern screening digital mammography: update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Radiology 283:49–58CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Neal CH, Coletti MC, Joe A, Jeffries DO, Helvie MA (2013) Does digital mammography increase detection of high-risk breast lesions presenting as calcifications? AJR Am J Roentgenol 201:1148–1154CrossRef Neal CH, Coletti MC, Joe A, Jeffries DO, Helvie MA (2013) Does digital mammography increase detection of high-risk breast lesions presenting as calcifications? AJR Am J Roentgenol 201:1148–1154CrossRef
Metadata
Title
AI-CAD for differentiating lesions presenting as calcifications only on mammography: outcome analysis incorporating the ACR BI-RADS descriptors for calcifications
Authors
Jiyoung Yoon
Hye Sun Lee
Min Jung Kim
Vivian Youngjean Park
Eun-Kyung Kim
Jung Hyun Yoon
Publication date
24-06-2022
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 10/2022
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08961-7

Other articles of this Issue 10/2022

European Radiology 10/2022 Go to the issue