Standalone AI for Breast Cancer Detection at Screening Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis : A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Background There is considerable interest in the potential use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in mammographic screening. However, it is essential to critically evaluate the performance of AI before it can become a modality used for independent mammographic interpretation. Purpose To evaluate the reported standalone performances of AI for interpretation of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Materials and Methods A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase (Ovid), and Web of Science databases for studies published from January 2017 to June 2022. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values were reviewed. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 and Comparative (QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C, respectively). A random effects meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis were performed for overall studies and for different study types (reader studies vs historic cohort studies) and imaging techniques (digital mammography vs DBT). Results In total, 16 studies that include 1 108 328 examinations in 497 091 women were analyzed (six reader studies, seven historic cohort studies on digital mammography, and four studies on DBT). Pooled AUCs were significantly higher for standalone AI than radiologists in the six reader studies on digital mammography (0.87 vs 0.81, P = .002), but not for historic cohort studies (0.89 vs 0.96, P = .152). Four studies on DBT showed significantly higher AUCs in AI compared with radiologists (0.90 vs 0.79, P < .001). Higher sensitivity and lower specificity were seen for standalone AI compared with radiologists. Conclusion Standalone AI for screening digital mammography performed as well as or better than radiologists. Compared with digital mammography, there is an insufficient number of studies to assess the performance of AI systems in the interpretation of DBT screening examinations. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Scaranelo in this issue.
| Errataetall: |
CommentIn: Radiology. 2023 Jun;307(5):e230935. - PMID 37219442 |
|---|---|
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2023 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2023 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:307 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Radiology - 307(2023), 5 vom: 03. Juni, Seite e222639 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Yoon, Jung Hyun [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 26.06.2023 Date Revised 20.03.2024 published: Print-Electronic CommentIn: Radiology. 2023 Jun;307(5):e230935. - PMID 37219442 Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1148/radiol.222639 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM357218922 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM357218922 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20240320233142.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231226s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1148/radiol.222639 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1337.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM357218922 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)37219445 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Yoon, Jung Hyun |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Standalone AI for Breast Cancer Detection at Screening Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis |b A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2023 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 26.06.2023 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 20.03.2024 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a CommentIn: Radiology. 2023 Jun;307(5):e230935. - PMID 37219442 | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a Background There is considerable interest in the potential use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in mammographic screening. However, it is essential to critically evaluate the performance of AI before it can become a modality used for independent mammographic interpretation. Purpose To evaluate the reported standalone performances of AI for interpretation of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Materials and Methods A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase (Ovid), and Web of Science databases for studies published from January 2017 to June 2022. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values were reviewed. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 and Comparative (QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C, respectively). A random effects meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis were performed for overall studies and for different study types (reader studies vs historic cohort studies) and imaging techniques (digital mammography vs DBT). Results In total, 16 studies that include 1 108 328 examinations in 497 091 women were analyzed (six reader studies, seven historic cohort studies on digital mammography, and four studies on DBT). Pooled AUCs were significantly higher for standalone AI than radiologists in the six reader studies on digital mammography (0.87 vs 0.81, P = .002), but not for historic cohort studies (0.89 vs 0.96, P = .152). Four studies on DBT showed significantly higher AUCs in AI compared with radiologists (0.90 vs 0.79, P < .001). Higher sensitivity and lower specificity were seen for standalone AI compared with radiologists. Conclusion Standalone AI for screening digital mammography performed as well as or better than radiologists. Compared with digital mammography, there is an insufficient number of studies to assess the performance of AI systems in the interpretation of DBT screening examinations. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Scaranelo in this issue | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Meta-Analysis | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Systematic Review | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Strand, Fredrik |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Baltzer, Pascal A T |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Conant, Emily F |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Gilbert, Fiona J |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Lehman, Constance D |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Morris, Elizabeth A |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Mullen, Lisa A |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Nishikawa, Robert M |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Sharma, Nisha |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Vejborg, Ilse |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Moy, Linda |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Mann, Ritse M |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Radiology |d 1945 |g 307(2023), 5 vom: 03. Juni, Seite e222639 |w (DE-627)NLM000054860 |x 1527-1315 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:307 |g year:2023 |g number:5 |g day:03 |g month:06 |g pages:e222639 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.222639 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 307 |j 2023 |e 5 |b 03 |c 06 |h e222639 | ||