kth.sePublications KTH
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
External Evaluation of 3 Commercial Artificial Intelligence Algorithms for Independent Assessment of Screening Mammograms
Karolinska Inst, Dept Oncol Pathol, Stockholm, Sweden.;Karolinska Univ Hosp, Dept Radiol, Stockholm, Sweden.
Karolinska Univ Hosp, Dept Med Radiat Phys & Nucl Med, Stockholm, Sweden..
Karolinska Inst, Dept Physiol & Pharmacol, Stockholm, Sweden.;Capio Sankt Görans Hosp, Dept Radiol, Stockholm, Sweden..
Karolinska Inst, Dept Oncol Pathol, Stockholm, Sweden.;Karolinska Inst, Dept Mol Med & Surg, Stockholm, Sweden..
Show others and affiliations
2020 (English)In: JAMA Oncology, ISSN 2374-2437, E-ISSN 2374-2445, Vol. 6, no 10, p. 1581-Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Importance: A computer algorithm that performs at or above the level of radiologists in mammography screening assessment could improve the effectiveness of breast cancer screening. Objective: To perform an external evaluation of 3 commercially available artificial intelligence (AI) computer-aided detection algorithms as independent mammography readers and to assess the screening performance when combined with radiologists. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective case-control study was based on a double-reader population-based mammography screening cohort of women screened at an academic hospital in Stockholm, Sweden, from 2008 to 2015. The study included 8805 women aged 40 to 74 years who underwent mammography screening and who did not have implants or prior breast cancer. The study sample included 739 women who were diagnosed as having breast cancer (positive) and a random sample of 8066 healthy controls (negative for breast cancer). Main Outcomes and Measures: Positive follow-up findings were determined by pathology-verified diagnosis at screening or within 12 months thereafter. Negative follow-up findings were determined by a 2-year cancer-free follow-up. Three AI computer-aided detection algorithms (AI-1, AI-2, and AI-3), sourced from different vendors, yielded a continuous score for the suspicion of cancer in each mammography examination. For a decision of normal or abnormal, the cut point was defined by the mean specificity of the first-reader radiologists (96.6%). Results: The median age of study participants was 60 years (interquartile range, 50-66 years) for 739 women who received a diagnosis of breast cancer and 54 years (interquartile range, 47-63 years) for 8066 healthy controls. The cases positive for cancer comprised 618 (84%) screen detected and 121 (16%) clinically detected within 12 months of the screening examination. The area under the receiver operating curve for cancer detection was 0.956 (95% CI, 0.948-0.965) for AI-1, 0.922 (95% CI, 0.910-0.934) for AI-2, and 0.920 (95% CI, 0.909-0.931) for AI-3. At the specificity of the radiologists, the sensitivities were 81.9% for AI-1, 67.0% for AI-2, 67.4% for AI-3, 77.4% for first-reader radiologist, and 80.1% for second-reader radiologist. Combining AI-1 with first-reader radiologists achieved 88.6% sensitivity at 93.0% specificity (abnormal defined by either of the 2 making an abnormal assessment). No other examined combination of AI algorithms and radiologists surpassed this sensitivity level. Conclusions and Relevance: To our knowledge, this study is the first independent evaluation of several AI computer-aided detection algorithms for screening mammography. The results of this study indicated that a commercially available AI computer-aided detection algorithm can assess screening mammograms with a sufficient diagnostic performance to be further evaluated as an independent reader in prospective clinical trials. Combining the first readers with the best algorithm identified more cases positive for cancer than combining the first readers with second readers. 

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
American Medical Association (AMA) , 2020. Vol. 6, no 10, p. 1581-
National Category
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-284972DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.3321ISI: 000583209400012PubMedID: 32852536Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85090773052OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-284972DiVA, id: diva2:1512318
Note

QC 20201222

Available from: 2020-12-22 Created: 2020-12-22 Last updated: 2022-06-25Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records

Liu, YueSmith, Kevin

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Liu, YueSmith, Kevin
By organisation
Computational Science and Technology (CST)Science for Life Laboratory, SciLifeLab
In the same journal
JAMA Oncology
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 223 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf