Summary
Background
Retrospective studies have shown promising results using artificial intelligence (AI) to improve mammography screening accuracy and reduce screen-reading workload; however, to our knowledge, a randomised trial has not yet been conducted. We aimed to assess the clinical safety of an AI-supported screen-reading protocol compared with standard screen reading by radiologists following mammography.
Methods
In this randomised, controlled, population-based trial, women aged 40–80 years eligible for mammography screening (including general screening with 1·5–2-year intervals and annual screening for those with moderate hereditary risk of breast cancer or a history of breast cancer) at four screening sites in Sweden were informed about the study as part of the screening invitation. Those who did not opt out were randomly allocated (1:1) to AI-supported screening (intervention group) or standard double reading without AI (control group). Screening examinations were automatically randomised by the Picture Archive and Communications System with a pseudo-random number generator after image acquisition. The participants and the radiographers acquiring the screening examinations, but not the radiologists reading the screening examinations, were masked to study group allocation. The AI system (Transpara version 1.7.0) provided an examination-based malignancy risk score on a 10-level scale that was used to triage screening examinations to single reading (score 1–9) or double reading (score 10), with AI risk scores (for all examinations) and computer-aided detection marks (for examinations with risk score 8–10) available to the radiologists doing the screen reading. Here we report the prespecified clinical safety analysis, to be done after 80 000 women were enrolled, to assess the secondary outcome measures of early screening performance (cancer detection rate, recall rate, false positive rate, positive predictive value of recall, and type of cancer detected [invasive or in situ]) and screen-reading workload. Analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat population (ie, all women randomly assigned to a group with one complete screening examination, excluding women recalled due to enlarged lymph nodes diagnosed with lymphoma). The lowest acceptable limit for safety in the intervention group was a cancer detection rate of more than 3 per 1000 participants screened. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04838756, and is closed to accrual; follow-up is ongoing to assess the primary endpoint of the trial, interval cancer rate.
Findings
Between April 12, 2021, and July 28, 2022, 80 033 women were randomly assigned to AI-supported screening (n=40 003) or double reading without AI (n=40 030). 13 women were excluded from the analysis. The median age was 54·0 years (IQR 46·7–63·9). Race and ethnicity data were not collected. AI-supported screening among 39 996 participants resulted in 244 screen-detected cancers, 861 recalls, and a total of 46 345 screen readings. Standard screening among 40 024 participants resulted in 203 screen-detected cancers, 817 recalls, and a total of 83 231 screen readings. Cancer detection rates were 6·1 (95% CI 5·4–6·9) per 1000 screened participants in the intervention group, above the lowest acceptable limit for safety, and 5·1 (4·4–5·8) per 1000 in the control group—a ratio of 1·2 (95% CI 1·0–1·5; p=0·052). Recall rates were 2·2% (95% CI 2·0–2·3) in the intervention group and 2·0% (1·9–2·2) in the control group. The false positive rate was 1·5% (95% CI 1·4–1·7) in both groups. The PPV of recall was 28·3% (95% CI 25·3–31·5) in the intervention group and 24·8% (21·9–28·0) in the control group. In the intervention group, 184 (75%) of 244 cancers detected were invasive and 60 (25%) were in situ; in the control group, 165 (81%) of 203 cancers were invasive and 38 (19%) were in situ. The screen-reading workload was reduced by 44·3% using AI.
Interpretation
AI-supported mammography screening resulted in a similar cancer detection rate compared with standard double reading, with a substantially lower screen-reading workload, indicating that the use of AI in mammography screening is safe. The trial was thus not halted and the primary endpoint of interval cancer rate will be assessed in 100 000 enrolled participants after 2-years of follow up.
Funding
Swedish Cancer Society, Confederation of Regional Cancer Centres, and the Swedish governmental funding for clinical research (ALF).
References
- 1.
Breast cancer screening and diagnosis: a synopsis of the European Breast Guidelines.Ann Intern Med. 2020; 172: 46-56
- 2.
Computer aids and human second reading as interventions in screening mammography: two systematic reviews to compare effects on cancer detection and recall rate.Eur J Cancer. 2008; 44: 798-807
- 3.
Double reading in breast cancer screening: considerations for policy-making.Br J Radiol. 2020; 9320190610
- 4.
Cost-effectiveness of double reading versus single reading of mammograms in a breast cancer screening programme.PLoS One. 2016; 11e0159806
- 5.
Staff shortages are putting UK breast cancer screening “at risk,” survey finds.BMJ. 2016; 353i2350
- 6.
The epidemiology, radiology and biological characteristics of interval breast cancers in population mammography screening.NPJ Breast Cancer. 2017; 3: 12
- 7.
True and missed interval cancer in organized mammographic screening: a retrospective review study of diagnostic and prior screening mammograms.Acad Radiol. 2022; 29: S180-S191
- 8.
Influence of review design on percentages of missed interval breast cancers: retrospective study of interval cancers in a population-based screening program.Radiology. 2005; 237: 437-443
- 9.
Artificial intelligence for breast cancer detection in mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: state of the art.Semin Cancer Biol. 2021; 72: 214-225
- 10.
Stand-alone artificial intelligence for breast cancer detection in mammography: comparison with 101 radiologists.J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019; 111: 916-922
- 11.
International evaluation of an AI system for breast cancer screening.Nature. 2020; 577: 89-94
- 12.
External evaluation of 3 commercial artificial intelligence algorithms for independent assessment of screening mammograms.JAMA Oncol. 2020; 6: 1581-1588
- 13.
Use of artificial intelligence for image analysis in breast cancer screening programmes: systematic review of test accuracy.BMJ. 2021; 374n1872
- 14.
Can we reduce the workload of mammographic screening by automatic identification of normal exams with artificial intelligence? A feasibility study.Eur Radiol. 2019; 29: 4825-4832
- 15.
Effect of artificial intelligence-based triaging of breast cancer screening mammograms on cancer detection and radiologist workload: a retrospective simulation study.Lancet Digit Health. 2020; 2: e468-e474
- 16.
Artificial intelligence evaluation of 122 969 mammography examinations from a population-based screening program.Radiology. 2022; 303: 502-511
- 17.
An artificial intelligence-based mammography screening protocol for breast cancer: outcome and radiologist workload.Radiology. 2022; 304: 41-49
- 18.
Can artificial intelligence reduce the interval cancer rate in mammography screening?.Eur Radiol. 2021; 31: 5940-5947
- 19.
AI-based prevention of interval cancers in a national mammography screening program.Eur J Radiol. 2022; 152110321
- 20.
Possible strategies for use of artificial intelligence in screen-reading of mammograms, based on retrospective data from 122,969 screening examinations.Eur Radiol. 2022; 32: 8238-8246
- 21.
If you don't find it often, you often don't find it: why some cancers are missed in breast cancer screening.PLoS One. 2013; 8e64366
- 22.
Interval breast cancer rates for digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography population screening: an individual participant data meta-analysis.eClinicalMedicine. 2021; 34100804
- 23.
The distribution of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) grade in 4232 women and its impact on overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening.Breast Cancer Res. 2016; 18: 47
- 24.
Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography.N Engl J Med. 2007; 356: 1399-1409
- 25.
Diagnostic accuracy of digital screening mammography with and without computer-aided detection.JAMA Intern Med. 2015; 175: 1828-1837
- 26.
Artificial Intelligence in medical imaging: learning from past mistakes in mammography.JAMA Health Forum. 2022; 3e215207
- 27.
Is it time to stop paying for computer-aided mammography?.JAMA Intern Med. 2015; 175: 1837-1838
- 28.
New screening technologies and practices: a different approach to estimation of performance improvement by using data from the transition period.Radiology. 2015; 275: 9-12
- 29.
Effect of radiologist experience on the risk of false-positive results in breast cancer screening programs.Eur Radiol. 2011; 21: 2083-2090
- 30.
Transparency in artificial intelligence.Internet Policy Rev. 2020; 91469
Article info
Publication history
Published: August 2023
Identification
Copyright
© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Plaats een reactie ...
Reageer op "AI = Kunstmatige intelligentie is beter in het screenen op borstkanker dan dan twee radiologen die de beelden bekijken, blijkt uit een grootschalig Zweeds onderzoek."