Performance of an Artificial Intelligence System for Breast Cancer Detection on Screening Mammograms from BreastScreen Norway.

Purpose To explore the stand-alone breast cancer detection performance, at different risk score thresholds, of a commercially available artificial intelligence (AI) system. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included information from 661 695 digital mammographic examinations performed among 242 629 female individuals screened as a part of BreastScreen Norway, 2004-2018. The study sample included 3807 screen-detected cancers and 1110 interval breast cancers. A continuous examination-level risk score by the AI system was used to measure performance as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) with 95% CIs and cancer detection at different AI risk score thresholds. Results The AUC of the AI system was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.92, 0.93) for screen-detected cancers and interval breast cancers combined and 0.97 (95% CI: 0.97, 0.97) for screen-detected cancers. In a setting where 10% of the examinations with the highest AI risk scores were defined as positive and 90% with the lowest scores as negative, 92.0% (3502 of 3807) of the screen-detected cancers and 44.6% (495 of 1110) of the interval breast cancers were identified with AI. In this scenario, 68.5% (10 987 of 16 040) of false-positive screening results (negative recall assessment) were considered negative by AI. When 50% was used as the cutoff, 99.3% (3781 of 3807) of the screen-detected cancers and 85.2% (946 of 1110) of the interval breast cancers were identified as positive by AI, whereas 17.0% (2725 of 16 040) of the false-positive results were considered negative. Conclusion The AI system showed high performance in detecting breast cancers within 2 years of screening mammography and a potential for use to triage low-risk mammograms to reduce radiologist workload. Keywords: Mammography, Breast, Screening, Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), Deep Learning Algorithms Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2024 See also commentary by Bahl and Do in this issue.

AI performance by mammographic density in a retrospective cohort study of 99,489 participants in BreastScreen Norway.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the ability of artificial intelligence (AI) to classify breast cancer by mammographic density in an organized screening program. MATERIALS AND METHOD: We included information about 99,489 examinations from 74,941 women who participated in BreastScreen Norway, 2013-2019. All examinations were analyzed with an AI system that assigned a malignancy risk score (AI score) from 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest) for each examination. Mammographic density was classified into Volpara density grade (VDG), VDG1-4; VDG1 indicated fatty and VDG4 extremely dense breasts. Screen-detected and interval cancers with an AI score of 1-10 were stratified by VDG. RESULTS: We found 10,406 (10.5% of the total) examinations to have an AI risk score of 10, of which 6.7% (704/10,406) was breast cancer. The cancers represented 89.7% (617/688) of the screen-detected and 44.6% (87/195) of the interval cancers. 20.3% (20,178/99,489) of the examinations were classified as VDG1 and 6.1% (6047/99,489) as VDG4. For screen-detected cancers, 84.0% (68/81, 95% CI, 74.1-91.2) had an AI score of 10 for VDG1, 88.9% (328/369, 95% CI, 85.2-91.9) for VDG2, 92.5% (185/200, 95% CI, 87.9-95.7) for VDG3, and 94.7% (36/38, 95% CI, 82.3-99.4) for VDG4. For interval cancers, the percentages with an AI score of 10 were 33.3% (3/9, 95% CI, 7.5-70.1) for VDG1 and 48.0% (12/25, 95% CI, 27.8-68.7) for VDG4. CONCLUSION: The tested AI system performed well according to cancer detection across all density categories, especially for extremely dense breasts. The highest proportion of screen-detected cancers with an AI score of 10 was observed for women classified as VDG4. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Our study demonstrates that AI can correctly classify the majority of screen-detected and about half of the interval breast cancers, regardless of breast density. KEY POINTS: • Mammographic density is important to consider in the evaluation of artificial intelligence in mammographic screening. • Given a threshold representing about 10% of those with the highest malignancy risk score by an AI system, we found an increasing percentage of cancers with increasing mammographic density. • Artificial intelligence risk score and mammographic density combined may help triage examinations to reduce workload for radiologists.

How do AI markings on screening mammograms correspond to cancer location? An informed review of 270 breast cancer cases in BreastScreen Norway.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the location of AI markings on screening mammograms with cancer location on diagnostic mammograms, and to classify interval cancers with high AI score as false negative, minimal sign, or true negative. METHODS: In a retrospective study from 2022, we compared the performance of an AI system with independent double reading according to cancer detection. We found 93% (880/949) of the screen-detected cancers, and 40% (122/305) of the interval cancers to have the highest AI risk score (AI score of 10). In this study, four breast radiologists reviewed mammograms from 126 randomly selected screen-detected cancers and all 120 interval cancers with an AI score of 10. The location of the AI marking was stated as correct/not correct in craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique view. Interval cancers with an AI score of 10 were classified as false negative, minimal sign significant/non-specific, or true negative. RESULTS: All screen-detected cancers and 78% (93/120) of the interval cancers with an AI score of 10 were correctly located by the AI system. The AI markings matched in both views for 79% (100/126) of the screen-detected cancers and 22% (26/120) of the interval cancers. For interval cancers with an AI score of 10, 11% (13/120) were correctly located and classified as false negative, 10% (12/120) as minimal sign significant, 26% (31/120) as minimal sign non-specific, and 31% (37/120) as true negative. CONCLUSION: AI markings corresponded to cancer location for all screen-detected cancers and 78% of the interval cancers with high AI score, indicating a potential for reducing the number of interval cancers. However, it is uncertain whether interval cancers with subtle findings in only one view are actionable for recall in a true screening setting. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: In this study, AI markings corresponded to the location of the cancer in a high percentage of cases, indicating that the AI system accurately identifies the cancer location in mammograms with a high AI score. KEY POINTS: • All screen-detected and 78% of the interval cancers with high AI risk score (AI score of 10) had AI markings in one or two views corresponding to the location of the cancer on diagnostic images. • Among all 120 interval cancers with an AI score of 10, 21% (25/120) were classified as a false negative or minimal sign significant and had AI markings matching the cancer location, suggesting they may be visible on prior screening. • Most of the correctly located interval cancers matched only in one view, and the majority were classified as either true negative or minimal sign non-specific, indicating low potential for being detected earlier in a real screening setting.

AI Risk Score on Screening Mammograms Preceding Breast Cancer Diagnosis.

Background Few studies have evaluated the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in prior screening mammography. Purpose To examine AI risk scores assigned to screening mammography in women who were later diagnosed with breast cancer. Materials and Methods Image data and screening information of examinations performed from January 2004 to December 2019 as part of BreastScreen Norway were used in this retrospective study. Prior screening examinations from women who were later diagnosed with cancer were assigned an AI risk score by a commercially available AI system (scores of 1-7, low risk of malignancy; 8-9, intermediate risk; and 10, high risk of malignancy). Mammographic features of the cancers based on the AI score were also assessed. The association between AI score and mammographic features was tested with a bivariate test. Results A total of 2787 prior screening examinations from 1602 women (mean age, 59 years ± 5.1 [SD]) with screen-detected (n = 1016) or interval (n = 586) cancers showed an AI risk score of 10 for 389 (38.3%) and 231 (39.4%) cancers, respectively, on the mammograms in the screening round prior to diagnosis. Among the screen-detected cancers with AI scores available two screening rounds (4 years) before diagnosis, 23.0% (122 of 531) had a score of 10. Mammographic features were associated with AI score for invasive screen-detected cancers (P < .001). Density with calcifications was registered for 13.6% (43 of 317) of screen-detected cases with a score of 10 and 4.6% (15 of 322) for those with a score of 1-7. Conclusion More than one in three cases of screen-detected and interval cancers had the highest AI risk score at prior screening, suggesting that the use of AI in mammography screening may lead to earlier detection of breast cancers. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Mehta in this issue.

Optimizing the Pairs of Radiologists That Double Read Screening Mammograms.

Background Despite variation in performance characteristics among radiologists, the pairing of radiologists for the double reading of screening mammograms is performed randomly. It is unknown how to optimize pairing to improve screening performance. Purpose To investigate whether radiologist performance characteristics can be used to determine the optimal set of pairs of radiologists to double read screening mammograms for improved accuracy. Materials and Methods This retrospective study was performed with reading outcomes from breast cancer screening programs in Sweden (2008-2015), England (2012-2014), and Norway (2004-2018). Cancer detection rates (CDRs) and abnormal interpretation rates (AIRs) were calculated, with AIR defined as either reader flagging an examination as abnormal. Individual readers were divided into performance categories based on their high and low CDR and AIR. The performance of individuals determined the classification of pairs. Random pair performance, for which any type of pair was equally represented, was compared with the performance of specific pairing strategies, which consisted of pairs of readers who were either opposite or similar in AIR and/or CDR. Results Based on a minimum number of examinations per reader and per pair, the final study sample consisted of 3 592 414 examinations (Sweden, n = 965 263; England, n = 837 048; Norway, n = 1 790 103). The overall AIRs and CDRs for all specific pairing strategies (Sweden AIR range, 45.5-56.9 per 1000 examinations and CDR range, 3.1-3.6 per 1000; England AIR range, 68.2-70.5 per 1000 and CDR range, 8.9-9.4 per 1000; Norway AIR range, 81.6-88.1 per 1000 and CDR range, 6.1-6.8 per 1000) were not significantly different from the random pairing strategy (Sweden AIR, 54.1 per 1000 examinations and CDR, 3.3 per 1000; England AIR, 69.3 per 1000 and CDR, 9.1 per 1000; Norway AIR, 84.1 per 1000 and CDR, 6.3 per 1000). Conclusion Pairing a set of readers based on different pairing strategies did not show a significant difference in screening performance when compared with random pairing. © RSNA, 2023.

Prolonged screening interval due to the COVID-19 pandemic and its association with tumor characteristics and treatment; a register-based study from BreastScreen Norway.

OBJECTIVE: During the COVID-19 pandemic Norway had to suspend its national breast cancer screening program. We aimed to investigate the effect of the pandemic-induced suspension on the screening interval, and its subsequent association with the tumor characteristics and treatment of screen-detected (SDC) and interval breast cancer (IC). METHODS: Information about women aged 50-69, participating in BreastScreen Norway, and diagnosed with a SDC (N = 3799) or IC (N = 1806) between 2018 and 2021 was extracted from the Cancer Registry of Norway. Logistic regression was used to investigate the association between COVID-19 induced prolonged screening intervals and tumor characteristics and treatment. RESULTS: Women with a SDC and their last screening exam before the pandemic had a median screening interval of 24.0 months (interquartile range: 23.8-24.5), compared to 27.0 months (interquartile range: 25.8-28.5) for those with their last screening during the pandemic. The tumor characteristics and treatment of women with a SDC, last screening during the pandemic, and a screening interval of 29-31 months, did not differ from those of women with a SDC, last screening before the pandemic, and a screening interval of 23-25 months. ICs detected 24-31 months after screening, were more likely to be histological grade 3 compared to ICs detected 0-23 months after screening (odds ratio: 1.40, 95% confidence interval: 1.06-1.84). CONCLUSIONS: Pandemic-induced prolonged screening intervals were not associated with the tumor characteristics and treatment of SDCs, but did increase the risk of a histopathological grade 3 IC. This study provides insights into the possible effects of extending the screening interval.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on breast cancer incidence and tumor stage in the Netherlands and Norway: A population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Comparing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the incidence of newly diagnosed breast tumors and their tumor stage between the Netherlands and Norway will help us understand the effect of differences in governmental and social reactions towards the pandemic. METHODS: Women newly diagnosed with breast cancer in 2017-2021 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Cancer Registry of Norway. The crude breast cancer incidence rate (tumors per 100,000 women) during the first (March-September 2020), second (October 2020-April 2021), and Delta COVID-19 wave (May-December 2021) was compared with the incidence rate in the corresponding periods in 2017, 2018, and 2019. Incidence rates were stratified by age group, method of detection, and clinical tumor stage. RESULTS: During the first wave breast cancer incidence declined to a larger extent in the Netherlands than in Norway (27.7% vs. 17.2% decrease, respectively). In both countries, incidence decreased in women eligible for screening. In the Netherlands, incidence also decreased in women not eligible for screening. During the second wave an increase in the incidence of stage IV tumors in women aged 50-69 years was seen in the Netherlands. During the Delta wave an increase in overall incidence and incidence of stage I tumors was seen in Norway. CONCLUSION: Alterations in breast cancer incidence and tumor stage seem related to a combined effect of the suspension of the screening program, health care avoidance due to the severity of the pandemic, and other unknown factors.

Personalized Breast Cancer Screening: A Risk Prediction Model Based on Women Attending BreastScreen Norway.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to develop and validate a model predicting breast cancer risk for women targeted by breast cancer screening. METHOD: This retrospective cohort study included 57,411 women screened at least once in BreastScreen Norway during the period from 2007 to 2019. The prediction model included information about age, mammographic density, family history of breast cancer, body mass index, age at menarche, alcohol consumption, exercise, pregnancy, hormone replacement therapy, and benign breast disease. We calculated a 4-year absolute breast cancer risk estimates for women and in risk groups by quartiles. The Bootstrap resampling method was used for internal validation of the model (E/O ratio). The area under the curve (AUC) was estimated with a 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: The 4-year predicted risk of breast cancer ranged from 0.22-7.33%, while 95% of the population had a risk of 0.55-2.31%. The thresholds for the quartiles of the risk groups, with 25% of the population in each group, were 0.82%, 1.10%, and 1.47%. Overall, the model slightly overestimated the risk with an E/O ratio of 1.10 (95% CI: 1.09-1.11) and the AUC was 62.6% (95% CI: 60.5-65.0%). CONCLUSIONS: This 4-year risk prediction model showed differences in the risk of breast cancer, supporting personalized screening for breast cancer in women aged 50-69 years.

Early performance measures following regular versus irregular screening attendance in the population-based screening program for breast cancer in Norway.

OBJECTIVE: Irregular attendance in breast cancer screening has been associated with higher breast cancer mortality compared to regular attendance. Early performance measures of a screening program following regular versus irregular screening attendance have been less studied. We aimed to investigate early performance measures following regular versus irregular screening attendance. METHODS: We used information from 3,302,396 screening examinations from the Cancer Registry of Norway. Examinations were classified as regular or irregular. Regular was defined as an examination 2 years ± 6 months after the prior examination, and irregular examination >2 years and 6 months after prior examination. Performance measures included recall, biopsy, screen-detected and interval cancer, positive predictive values, and histopathological tumor characteristics. RESULTS: Recall rate was 2.4% (72,429/3,070,068) for regular and 3.5% (8217/232,328) for irregular examinations. The biopsy rate was 1.0% (29,197/3,070,068) for regular and 1.7% (3825/232,328) for irregular examinations, while the rate of screen-detected cancers 0.51% (15,664/3,070,068) versus 0.86% (2003/232,328), respectively. The adjusted odds ratio was 1.53 (95% CI: 1.49-1.56) for recall, 1.73 (95% CI: 1.68-1.80) for biopsy, and 1.68 (95% CI: 1.60-1.76) for screen-detected cancer after irregular examinations compared to regular examinations. The proportion of lymph node-positive tumors was 20.1% (2553/12,719) for regular and 25.6% (426/1662) for irregular examinations. CONCLUSION: Irregular attendance was linked to higher rates of recall, needle biopsies, and cancer detection. Cancers detected after irregular examinations had less favorable histopathological tumor characteristics compared to cancers detected after regular examinations. Women should be encouraged to attend screening when invited to avoid delays in diagnosis.

Norwegian radiologists' expectations of artificial intelligence in mammographic screening - A cross-sectional survey.

PURPOSE: To explore Norwegian breast radiologists' expectations of adding artificial intelligence (AI) in the interpretation procedure of screening mammograms. METHODS: All breast radiologists involved in interpretation of screening mammograms in BreastScreen Norway during 2021 and 2022 (n = 98) were invited to take part in this anonymous cross-sectional survey about use of AI in mammographic screening. The questionnaire included background information of the respondents, their expectations, considerations of biases, and ethical and social implications of implementing AI in screen reading. Data was collected digitally and analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The response rate was 61% (60/98), and 67% (40/60) of the respondents were women. Sixty percent (36/60) reported ≥10 years' experience in screen reading, while 82% (49/60) reported no or limited experience with AI in health care. Eighty-two percent of the respondents were positive to explore AI in the interpretation procedure in mammographic screening. When used as decision support, 68% (41/60) expected AI to increase the radiologists' sensitivity for cancer detection. As potential challenges, 55% (33/60) reported lack of trust in the AI system and 45% (27/60) reported discrepancy between radiologists and AI systems as possible challenges. The risk of automation bias was considered high among 47% (28/60). Reduced time spent reading mammograms was rated as a potential benefit by 70% (42/60). CONCLUSION: The radiologists reported positive expectations of AI in the interpretation procedure of screening mammograms. Efforts to minimize the risk of automation bias and increase trust in the AI systems are important before and during future implementation of the tool.

Breast cancer missed at screening; hindsight or mistakes?

PURPOSE: To investigate radiologists' interpretation scores of screening mammograms prior to diagnosis of screen-detected and interval breast cancers retrospectively classified as missed or true negative. METHODS: We included data on radiologists' interpretation scores at screening prior to diagnosis for 1223 screen-detected and 1007 interval cancer cases classified as missed or true negative in an informed consensus-based review. All prior screening examinations were independently scored 1-5 by two radiologists; score 1 by both was considered concordant negative, score ≥ 2 by one radiologist discordant, and score ≥ 2 by both concordant positive. We analyzed associations between interpretation, review categories, mammographic features and histopathological findings using descriptive statistics and logistic regression. RESULTS: Among screen-detected cancers, 31% of missed and 10% of true negative cancers had discordant or concordant positive interpretation at prior screening. The corresponding percentages for interval cancer were 21% and 8%. Age-adjusted odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for missed screen-detected cancer was 3.8 (95% CI: 2.6-5.4) after discordant and 5.5 (95% CI: 3.2-9.5) after concordant positive interpretation, using concordant negative as reference. Corresponding ORs for missed interval cancer were 3.0 (95% CI: 2.0-4.5) for discordant and 6.3 (95% CI: 2.3-17.5) for concordant positive interpretation. Asymmetry was the dominating mammographic feature at prior screening for all, except concordant positive screen-detected cancers where a mass dominated. Histopathological characteristics did not vary statistically with interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: Most cancers were interpreted negatively at screening prior to diagnosis. Increased risk for missed screen-detected or interval cancer was observed after positive interpretation at prior screening.

Screening outcome for interpretation by the first and second reader in a population-based mammographic screening program with independent double reading.

BACKGROUND: Double reading of screening mammograms is associated with a higher rate of screen-detected cancer than single reading, but different strategies exist regarding reader pairing and blinding. Knowledge about these aspects is important when considering strategies for future use of artificial intelligence in mammographic screening. PURPOSE: To investigate screening outcome, histopathological tumor characteristics, and mammographic features stratified by the first and the second reader in a population based screening program for breast cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study sample consisted of data from 3,499,048 screening examinations from 834,691 women performed during 1996-2018 in BreastScreen Norway. All examinations were interpreted independently by two radiologists, 272 in total. We analyzed interpretation score, recall, and cancer detection, as well as histopathological tumor characteristics and mammographic features of the cancers, stratified by the first and second readers. RESULTS: For Reader 1, the rate of positive interpretations was 4.8%, recall 2.3%, and cancer detection 0.5%. The corresponding percentages for Reader 2 were 4.9%, 2.5%, and 0.5% (P < 0.05 compared with Reader 1). No statistical difference was observed for histopathological tumor characteristics or mammographic features when stratified by Readers 1 and 2. Recall and cancer detection were statistically higher and histopathological tumor characteristics less favorable for cases detected after concordant positive compared with discordant interpretations. CONCLUSION: Despite reaching statistical significance, mainly due to the large study sample, we consider the differences in interpretation scores, recall, and cancer detection between the first and second readers to be clinically negligible. For practical and clinical purposes, double reading in BreastScreen Norway is independent.

Mammographic density and interval cancers in mammographic screening: Moving towards more personalized screening.

PURPOSE: The European Society on Breast Imaging has recommended supplemental magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) every two to four years for women with mammographically dense breasts. This may not be feasible in many screening programs. Also, the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer suggests not implementing screening with MRI. By analyzing interval cancers and time from screening to diagnosis by density, we present alternative screening strategies for women with dense breasts. METHODS: Our BreastScreen Norway cohort included 508 536 screening examinations, including 3125 screen-detected and 945 interval breast cancers. Time from screening to interval cancer was stratified by density measured by an automated software and classified into Volpara Density Grades (VDGs) 1-4. Examinations with volumetric density ≤3.4% were categorized as VDG1, 3.5%-7.4% as VDG2, 7.5%-15.4% as VDG3, and ≥15.5% as VDG4. Interval cancer rates were also determined by continuous density measures. RESULTS: Median time from screening to interval cancer was 496 (IQR: 391-587) days for VDG1, 500 (IQR: 350-616) for VDG2, 482 (IQR: 309-595) for VDG3 and 427 (IQR: 266-577) for VDG4. A total of 35.9% of the interval cancers among VDG4 were detected within the first year of the biennial screening interval. For VDG2, 26.3% were detected within the first year. The highest annual interval cancer rate (2.7 per 1000 examinations) was observed for VDG4 in the second year of the biennial interval. CONCLUSIONS: Annual screening of women with extremely dense breasts may reduce the interval cancer rate and increase program-wide sensitivity, especially in settings where supplemental MRI screening is not feasible.

Artificial intelligence in BreastScreen Norway: a retrospective analysis of a cancer-enriched sample including 1254 breast cancer cases.

OBJECTIVES: To compare results of selected performance measures in mammographic screening for an artificial intelligence (AI) system versus independent double reading by radiologists. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we analyzed data from 949 screen-detected breast cancers, 305 interval cancers, and 13,646 negative examinations performed in BreastScreen Norway during the period from 2010 to 2018. An AI system scored the examinations from 1 to 10, based on the risk of malignancy. Results from the AI system were compared to screening results after independent double reading. AI score 10 was set as the threshold. The results were stratified by mammographic density. RESULTS: A total of 92.7% of the screen-detected and 40.0% of the interval cancers had an AI score of 10. Among women with a negative screening outcome, 9.1% had an AI score of 10. For women with the highest breast density, the AI system scored 100% of the screen-detected cancers and 48.6% of the interval cancers with an AI score of 10, which resulted in a sensitivity of 80.9% for women with the highest breast density for the AI system, compared to 62.8% for independent double reading. For women with screen-detected cancers who had prior mammograms available, 41.9% had an AI score of 10 at the prior screening round. CONCLUSIONS: The high proportion of cancers with an AI score of 10 indicates a promising performance of the AI system, particularly for women with dense breasts. Results on prior mammograms with AI score 10 illustrate the potential for earlier detection of breast cancers by using AI in screen-reading. KEY POINTS: • The AI system scored 93% of the screen-detected cancers and 40% of the interval cancers with AI score 10. • The AI system scored all screen-detected cancers and almost 50% of interval cancers among women with the highest breast density with AI score 10. • About 40% of the screen-detected cancers had an AI score of 10 on the prior mammograms, indicating a potential for earlier detection by using AI in screen-reading.

Early screening outcomes among non-immigrants and immigrants targeted by BreastScreen Norway, 2010-2019.

AIMS: This study aimed to analyse results on early screening outcomes, including recall and cancer rates, and histopathological tumour characteristics among non-immigrants and immigrants invited to BreastScreen Norway. METHODS: We included information about 2, 763,230 invitations and 2,087,222 screening examinations from 805,543 women aged 50-69 years who were invited to BreastScreen Norway between 2010 and 2019. Women were stratified into three groups based on their birth country: non-immigrants, immigrants born in Western countries and immigrants born in non-Western countries. Age-adjusted regression models were used to analyse early screening outcomes. A random intercept effect was included in models where women underwent several screening examinations. RESULTS: The overall attendance was 77.5% for non-immigrants, 68% for immigrants from Western countries and 51.5% for immigrants from non-Western countries. The rate of screen-detected cancers was 5.9/1000 screening examinations for non-immigrants, 6.3/1000 for immigrants from Western countries and 5.1/1000 for immigrants from non-Western countries. Adjusted for age, the rate did not differ statistically between the groups (p=0.091). The interval cancer rate was 1.7/1000 screening examinations for non-immigrants, 2.4/1000 for immigrants from Western countries and 1.6/1000 for non-Western countries (p<0.001). Histological grade was less favourable for screen-detected cancers, and subtype was less favourable for interval cancers among immigrants from non-Western countries versus non-immigrants. CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in age-adjusted rate of screen-detected cancer among non-immigrants and immigrants from Western countries or non-Western countries among women attending BreastScreen Norway between 2010 and 2019. Small but clinically relevant differences in histopathological tumour characteristics were observed between the three groups.

Level of education is associated with coronary heart disease and chronic kidney disease in individuals with type 2 diabetes: a population-based study.

INTRODUCTION: To study the relationship between education level and vascular complications in individuals with type 2 diabetes in Norway. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Multiregional population-based cross-sectional study of individuals with type 2 diabetes in primary care. Data were extracted from electronic medical records in the period 2012-2014. Information on education level was obtained from Statistics Norway. Using multivariable multilevel regression analyses on imputed data we analyzed the association between education level and vascular complications. We adjusted for age, sex, HbA1c, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, smoking and diabetes duration. Results are presented as ORs and 95% CIs. RESULTS: Of 8192 individuals with type 2 diabetes included, 34.0% had completed compulsory education, 49.0% upper secondary education and 16.9% higher education. The prevalence of vascular complications in the three education groups was: coronary heart disease 25.9%, 23.0% and 16.9%; stroke 9.6%, 7.4% and 6.6%; chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2) 23.9%, 16.8% and 12.6%; and retinopathy 13.9%, 11.5% and 11.7%, respectively. Higher education was associated with lower odds for coronary heart disease (OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.71) and chronic kidney disease (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.60 to 0.93) compared with compulsory education when adjusting for age, sex, HbA1c, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, smoking and diabetes duration. CONCLUSIONS: In a country with equal access to healthcare, high education level was associated with lower odds for coronary heart disease and chronic kidney disease in individuals with type 2 diabetes.

Possible strategies for use of artificial intelligence in screen-reading of mammograms, based on retrospective data from 122,969 screening examinations.

OBJECTIVES: Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown promising results when used on retrospective data from mammographic screening. However, few studies have explored the possible consequences of different strategies for combining AI and radiologists in screen-reading. METHODS: A total of 122,969 digital screening examinations performed between 2009 and 2018 in BreastScreen Norway were retrospectively processed by an AI system, which scored the examinations from 1 to 10; 1 indicated low suspicion of malignancy and 10 high suspicion. Results were merged with information about screening outcome and used to explore consensus, recall, and cancer detection for 11 different scenarios of combining AI and radiologists. RESULTS: Recall was 3.2%, screen-detected cancer 0.61% and interval cancer 0.17% after independent double reading and served as reference values. In a scenario where examinations with AI scores 1-5 were considered negative and 6-10 resulted in standard independent double reading, the estimated recall was 2.6% and screen-detected cancer 0.60%. When scores 1-9 were considered negative and score 10 double read, recall was 1.2% and screen-detected cancer 0.53%. In these two scenarios, potential rates of screen-detected cancer could be up to 0.63% and 0.56%, if the interval cancers selected for consensus were detected at screening. In the former scenario, screen-reading volume would be reduced by 50%, while the latter would reduce the volume by 90%. CONCLUSION: Several theoretical scenarios with AI and radiologists have the potential to reduce the volume in screen-reading without affecting cancer detection substantially. Possible influence on recall and interval cancers must be evaluated in prospective studies. KEY POINTS: • Different scenarios using artificial intelligence in combination with radiologists could reduce the screen-reading volume by 50% and result in a rate of screen-detected cancer ranging from 0.59% to 0.60%, compared to 0.61% after standard independent double reading • The use of artificial intelligence in combination with radiologists has the potential to identify negative screening examinations with high precision in mammographic screening and to reduce the rate of interval cancer.

Participation and cancer detection after reminders versus ordinary invitations in BreastScreen Norway.

OBJECTIVES: To compare attendance, recall and cancer detection as well as histopathological tumor characteristics among women attending BreastScreen Norway after a reminder versus an ordinary invitation. SETTING: This study was conducted on data from a population-based screening program inviting women aged 50-69 to biennial two-view mammography. METHODS: We used de-identified data from 883,020 women invited to BreastScreen Norway, 2004-2020, to analyze invitations, participation, recalls, biopsies, cancer detection, and histopathological tumor characteristics. All results were stratified by reminders and ordinary invitations. Early screening outcomes after reminders versus ordinary invitations were compared using bivariate tests and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Reminders increased overall participation rate by 5.0%. The recall rate was 4.3% for reminded women and 3.3% for the ordinary invited. For reminded women, the rate of screen-detected cancer was 7.3 per 1000 screening examinations compared to 5.8 per 1000 for ordinary attenders. The interval cancer rates were 1.9 and 1.7 per 1000 for reminded and ordinary invited women, respectively. Median tumor diameter was 14 mm (interquartile range (IQR): 10-16) for screen-detected cancers (SDC) among reminded women and 13 mm (IQR: 10-16) for ordinary invited. A higher percentage of histological grade III cancers was observed among the reminded: 25.2% versus 21.7% for the ordinary invited. We also found a higher proportion of lymph node positive cases in those reminded: 23.6% versus 20.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Postponing screening examinations affects early screening outcomes, including cancer detection and histopathological tumor characteristics. Women should be encouraged to attend screening at regularly intervals to avoid delays in diagnosis.

Screen-detected and interval breast cancer after concordant and discordant interpretations in a population based screening program using independent double reading.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze rates, odds ratios (OR), and characteristics of screen-detected and interval cancers after concordant and discordant initial interpretations and consensus in a population-based screening program. METHODS: Data were extracted from the Cancer Registry of Norway for 487,118 women who participated in BreastScreen Norway, 2006-2017, with 2 years of follow-up. All mammograms were independently interpreted by two radiologists, using a score from 1 (negative) to 5 (high suspicion of cancer). A score of 2+ by one of the two radiologists was defined as discordant and 2+ by both radiologists as concordant positive. Consensus was performed on all discordant and concordant positive, with decisions of recall for further assessment or dismiss. OR was estimated with logistic regression with 95% confidence interval (CI), and histopathological tumor characteristics were analyzed for screen-detected and interval cancer. RESULTS: Among screen-detected cancers, 23.0% (697/3024) had discordant scores, while 12.8% (117/911) of the interval cancers were dismissed at index screening. Adjusted OR was 2.4 (95% CI: 1.9-2.9) for interval cancer and 2.8 (95% CI: 2.5-3.2) for subsequent screen-detected cancer for women dismissed at consensus compared to women with concordant negative scores. We found 3.4% (4/117) of the interval cancers diagnosed after being dismissed to be DCIS, compared to 20.3% (12/59) of those with false-positive result after index screening. CONCLUSION: Twenty-three percent of the screen-detected cancers was scored negative by one of the two radiologists. A higher odds of interval and subsequent screen-detected cancer was observed among women dismissed at consensus compared to concordant negative scores. Our findings indicate a benefit of personalized follow-up. KEY POINTS: • In this study of 487,118 women participating in a screening program using independent double reading with consensus, 23% screen-detected cancers were detected by only one of the two radiologists. • The adjusted odds ratio for interval cancer was 2.4 (95% confidence interval: 1.9, 2.9) for cases dismissed at consensus using concordant negative interpretations as the reference. • Interval cancers diagnosed after being dismissed at consensus or after concordant negative scores had clinically less favorable prognostic tumor characteristics compared to those diagnosed after false-positive results.

Artificial Intelligence Evaluation of 122 969 Mammography Examinations from a Population-based Screening Program.

Background Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown promising results for cancer detection with mammographic screening. However, evidence related to the use of AI in real screening settings remain sparse. Purpose To compare the performance of a commercially available AI system with routine, independent double reading with consensus as performed in a population-based screening program. Furthermore, the histopathologic characteristics of tumors with different AI scores were explored. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, 122 969 screening examinations from 47 877 women performed at four screening units in BreastScreen Norway from October 2009 to December 2018 were included. The data set included 752 screen-detected cancers (6.1 per 1000 examinations) and 205 interval cancers (1.7 per 1000 examinations). Each examination had an AI score between 1 and 10, where 1 indicated low risk of breast cancer and 10 indicated high risk. Threshold 1, threshold 2, and threshold 3 were used to assess the performance of the AI system as a binary decision tool (selected vs not selected). Threshold 1 was set at an AI score of 10, threshold 2 was set to yield a selection rate similar to the consensus rate (8.8%), and threshold 3 was set to yield a selection rate similar to an average individual radiologist (5.8%). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize screening outcomes. Results A total of 653 of 752 screen-detected cancers (86.8%) and 92 of 205 interval cancers (44.9%) were given a score of 10 by the AI system (threshold 1). Using threshold 3, 80.1% of the screen-detected cancers (602 of 752) and 30.7% of the interval cancers (63 of 205) were selected. Screen-detected cancer with AI scores not selected using the thresholds had favorable histopathologic characteristics compared to those selected; opposite results were observed for interval cancer. Conclusion The proportion of screen-detected cancers not selected by the artificial intelligence (AI) system at the three evaluated thresholds was less than 20%. The overall performance of the AI system was promising according to cancer detection. © RSNA, 2022.