Screening in Patients With Dense Breasts: Comparison of Mammography, Artificial Intelligence, and Supplementary Ultrasound.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND. Screening mammography has decreased performance in patients with dense breasts. Supplementary screening ultrasound is a recommended option in such patients, although it has yielded mixed results in prior investigations. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to compare the performance characteristics of screening mammography alone, standalone artificial intelligence (AI), ultrasound alone, and mammography in combination with AI and/or ultrasound in patients with dense breasts. METHODS. This retrospective study included 1325 women (mean age, 53 years) with dense breasts who underwent both screening mammography and supplementary breast ultrasound within a 1-month interval from January 2017 to December 2017; prior mammography and prior ultrasound examinations were available for comparison in 91.2% and 91.8%, respectively. Mammography and ultrasound examinations were interpreted by one of 15 radiologists (five staff; 10 fellows); clinical reports were used for the present analysis. A commercial AI tool was used to retrospectively evaluate mammographic examinations for presence of cancer. Screening performances were compared among mammography, AI, ultrasound, and test combinations, using generalized estimating equations. Benign diagnoses required 24 months or longer of imaging stability. RESULTS. Twelve cancers (six invasive ductal carcinoma; six ductal carcinoma in situ) were diagnosed. Mammography, standalone AI, and ultrasound showed cancer detection rates (per 1000 patients) of 6.0, 6.8, and 6.0 (all p > .05); recall rates of 4.4%, 11.9%, and 9.2% (all p < .05); sensitivity of 66.7%, 75.0%, and 66.7% (all p > .05); specificity of 96.2%, 88.7%, and 91.3% (all p < .05); and accuracy of 95.9%, 88.5%, and 91.1% (all p < .05). Mammography with AI, mammography with ultrasound, and mammography with both ultrasound and AI showed cancer detection rates of 7.5, 9.1, and 9.1 (all p > .05); recall rates of 14.9, 11.7, and 21.4 (all p < .05); sensitivity of 83.3%, 100.0%, and 100.0% (all p > .05); specificity of 85.8%, 89.1%, and 79.4% (all p < .05); and accuracy of 85.7%, 89.2%, and 79.5% (all p < .05). CONCLUSION. Mammography with supplementary ultrasound showed higher accuracy, higher specificity, and lower recall rate in comparison with mammography with AI and in comparison with mammography with both ultrasound and AI. CLINICAL IMPACT. The findings fail to show benefit of AI with respect to screening mammography performed with supplementary breast ultrasound in patients with dense breasts.