Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Background Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown promise in mammography interpretation, and its use as a second reader in breast cancer screening may reduce the burden on health care systems. Purpose To evaluate the performance differences between routine double read and an AI as a second reader workflow (AISR), where the second reader is replaced with AI. Materials and Methods A cohort of patients undergoing routine breast cancer screening at a single center with mammography was retrospectively collected between 2005 and 2021. A model developed on US and UK data was fine-tuned on Japanese data. We subsequently performed a reader study with 10 qualified readers with varied experience (5 reader pairs), comparing routine double read to an AISR workflow. Results A “test set” of 4,059 women (mean age, 56 ± 14 years; 157 positive, 3,902 negative) was collected, with 278 (mean age 55 ± 13 years; 90 positive, 188 negative) evaluated for the reader study. We demonstrate an area under the curve =.84 (95% confidence interval CI, 0.805-0.881) on the test set, with no significant difference to decisions made in clinical practice (P = .32). Compared with routine double reading, in the AISR arm, sensitivity improved by 7.6% (95% CI, 3.80-11.4; P = .00004) and specificity decreased 3.4% (1.42-5.43; P = .0016), with 71% (212/298) of scans no longer requiring input from a second reader. Variation in recall decision between reader pairs improved from a Cohen kappa of κ = .65 (96% CI, 0.61-0.68) to κ = .74 (96% CI, 0.71-0.77) in the AISR arm. Conclusion AISR improves sensitivity, reduces variability and decreases workload compared to routine dual screening.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Etsuji Nakai
Yumi Miyagi
Kazuhiro Suzuki
Google (United States)
Japanese Foundation For Cancer Research
National Institute of Biomedical Innovation, Health and Nutrition
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Nakai et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/68e6b029b6db643587631ec3 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/radadv/umae011