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 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.

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.

[A man in his fifties with pain in the head, neck and ear canal] / En mann i 50-årene med smerter i hode, nakke og øregang.

BACKGROUND: A man in his fifties, originally from a Middle Eastern country, presented with left-sided otalgia and neck pain which worsened over several months. He had pre-existing hypertension, diabetes mellitus type 2 and end stage renal disease requiring dialysis. CASE PRESENTATION: His presenting complaints started whilst on a long stay in his country of origin. Symptoms progressively worsened over the coming months while he underwent extensive medical examinations and investigations. This revealed opacifications in the mastoid cavities, raised inflammatory markers, and finally a CT scan revealed osteolytic lesions in his cervical spine. The lesions continued to progress, and his clinical condition deteriorated to the point that he required surgery. Culture was obtained through perioperative biopsies and showed growth of Aspergillus flavus. INTERPRETATION: The patient had initially received topical treatment for an assumed infectious external otitis. Later culture from his outer ear also showed growth of A. flavus, the same pathogen that was found in a biopsy from his cervical spine. He was diagnosed with cervical mycotic osteomyelitis, probably secondary to a chronic external otitis. Long term antimycotic therapy and three neurosurgical operations were required to treat the patient.