Use of an AI Score Combining Cancer Signs, Masking, and Risk to Select Patients for Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening.

Background Mammographic density measurements are used to identify patients who should undergo supplemental imaging for breast cancer detection, but artificial intelligence (AI) image analysis may be more effective. Purpose To assess whether AISmartDensity-an AI-based score integrating cancer signs, masking, and risk-surpasses measurements of mammographic density in identifying patients for supplemental breast imaging after a negative screening mammogram. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included randomly selected individuals who underwent screening mammography at Karolinska University Hospital between January 2008 and December 2015. The models in AISmartDensity were trained and validated using nonoverlapping data. The ability of AISmartDensity to identify future cancer in patients with a negative screening mammogram was evaluated and compared with that of mammographic density models. Sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated for the top 8% of scores, mimicking the proportion of patients in the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System "extremely dense" category. Model performance was evaluated using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and was compared using the DeLong test. Results The study population included 65 325 examinations (median patient age, 53 years [IQR, 47-62 years])-64 870 examinations in healthy patients and 455 examinations in patients with breast cancer diagnosed within 3 years of a negative screening mammogram. The AUC for detecting subsequent cancers was 0.72 and 0.61 (P < .001) for AISmartDensity and the best-performing density model (age-adjusted dense area), respectively. For examinations with scores in the top 8%, AISmartDensity identified 152 of 455 (33%) future cancers with a PPV of 2.91%, whereas the best-performing density model (age-adjusted dense area) identified 57 of 455 (13%) future cancers with a PPV of 1.09% (P < .001). AISmartDensity identified 32% (41 of 130) and 34% (111 of 325) of interval and next-round screen-detected cancers, whereas the best-performing density model (dense area) identified 16% (21 of 130) and 9% (30 of 325), respectively. Conclusion AISmartDensity, integrating cancer signs, masking, and risk, outperformed traditional density models in identifying patients for supplemental imaging after a negative screening mammogram. © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Kim and Chang in this issue.

Reader bias in breast cancer screening related to cancer prevalence and artificial intelligence decision support-a reader study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of our study was to examine how breast radiologists would be affected by high cancer prevalence and the use of artificial intelligence (AI) for decision support. MATERIALS AND METHOD: This reader study was based on selection of screening mammograms, including the original radiologist assessment, acquired in 2010 to 2013 at the Karolinska University Hospital, with a ratio of 1:1 cancer versus healthy based on a 2-year follow-up. A commercial AI system generated an exam-level positive or negative read, and image markers. Double-reading and consensus discussions were first performed without AI and later with AI, with a 6-week wash-out period in between. The chi-squared test was used to test for differences in contingency tables. RESULTS: Mammograms of 758 women were included, half with cancer and half healthy. 52% were 40-55 years; 48% were 56-75 years. In the original non-enriched screening setting, the sensitivity was 61% (232/379) at specificity 98% (323/379). In the reader study, the sensitivity without and with AI was 81% (307/379) and 75% (284/379) respectively (p < 0.001). The specificity without and with AI was 67% (255/379) and 86% (326/379) respectively (p < 0.001). The tendency to change assessment from positive to negative based on erroneous AI information differed between readers and was affected by type and number of image signs of malignancy. CONCLUSION: Breast radiologists reading a list with high cancer prevalence performed at considerably higher sensitivity and lower specificity than the original screen-readers. Adding AI information, calibrated to a screening setting, decreased sensitivity and increased specificity. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Radiologist screening mammography assessments will be biased towards higher sensitivity and lower specificity by high-risk triaging and nudged towards the sensitivity and specificity setting of AI reads. After AI implementation in clinical practice, there is reason to carefully follow screening metrics to ensure the impact is desired. KEY POINTS: • Breast radiologists' sensitivity and specificity will be affected by changes brought by artificial intelligence. • Reading in a high cancer prevalence setting markedly increased sensitivity and decreased specificity. • Reviewing the binary reads by AI, negative or positive, biased screening radiologists towards the sensitivity and specificity of the AI system.

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.

Standalone AI for Breast Cancer Detection at Screening Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background There is considerable interest in the potential use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in mammographic screening. However, it is essential to critically evaluate the performance of AI before it can become a modality used for independent mammographic interpretation. Purpose To evaluate the reported standalone performances of AI for interpretation of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Materials and Methods A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase (Ovid), and Web of Science databases for studies published from January 2017 to June 2022. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values were reviewed. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 and Comparative (QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C, respectively). A random effects meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis were performed for overall studies and for different study types (reader studies vs historic cohort studies) and imaging techniques (digital mammography vs DBT). Results In total, 16 studies that include 1 108 328 examinations in 497 091 women were analyzed (six reader studies, seven historic cohort studies on digital mammography, and four studies on DBT). Pooled AUCs were significantly higher for standalone AI than radiologists in the six reader studies on digital mammography (0.87 vs 0.81, P = .002), but not for historic cohort studies (0.89 vs 0.96, P = .152). Four studies on DBT showed significantly higher AUCs in AI compared with radiologists (0.90 vs 0.79, P < .001). Higher sensitivity and lower specificity were seen for standalone AI compared with radiologists. Conclusion Standalone AI for screening digital mammography performed as well as or better than radiologists. Compared with digital mammography, there is an insufficient number of studies to assess the performance of AI systems in the interpretation of DBT screening examinations. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Scaranelo in this issue.

Factors Associated With False-Positive Recalls in Mammography Screening.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to identify factors associated with false-positive recalls in mammography screening compared with women who were not recalled and those who received true-positive recalls. METHODS: We included 29,129 women, aged 40 to 74 years, who participated in the Karolinska Mammography Project for Risk Prediction of Breast Cancer (KARMA) between 2011 and 2013 with follow-up until the end of 2017. Nonmammographic factors were collected from questionnaires, mammographic factors were generated from mammograms, and genotypes were determined using the OncoArray or an Illumina custom array. By the use of conditional and regular logistic regression models, we investigated the association between breast cancer risk factors and risk models and false-positive recalls. RESULTS: Women with a history of benign breast disease, high breast density, masses, microcalcifications, high Tyrer-Cuzick 10-year risk scores, KARMA 2-year risk scores, and polygenic risk scores were more likely to have mammography recalls, including both false-positive and true-positive recalls. Further analyses restricted to women who were recalled found that women with a history of benign breast disease and dense breasts had a similar risk of having false-positive and true-positive recalls, whereas women with masses, microcalcifications, high Tyrer-Cuzick 10-year risk scores, KARMA 2-year risk scores, and polygenic risk scores were more likely to have true-positive recalls than false-positive recalls. CONCLUSIONS: We found that risk factors associated with false-positive recalls were also likely, or even more likely, to be associated with true-positive recalls in mammography screening.

Breast MRI during Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Lack of Background Parenchymal Enhancement Suppression and Inferior Treatment Response.

Background Suppression of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) is commonly observed after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) at contrast-enhanced breast MRI. It was hypothesized that nonsuppressed BPE may be associated with inferior response to NAC. Purpose To investigate the relationship between lack of BPE suppression and pathologic response. Materials and Methods A retrospective review was performed for women with menopausal status data who were treated for breast cancer by one of 10 drug arms (standard NAC with or without experimental agents) between May 2010 and November 2016 in the Investigation of Serial Studies to Predict Your Therapeutic Response with Imaging and Molecular Analysis 2, or I-SPY 2 TRIAL (NCT01042379). Patients underwent MRI at four points: before treatment (T0), early treatment (T1), interregimen (T2), and before surgery (T3). BPE was quantitatively measured by using automated fibroglandular tissue segmentation. To test the hypothesis effectively, a subset of examinations with BPE with high-quality segmentation was selected. BPE change from T0 was defined as suppressed or nonsuppressed for each point. The Fisher exact test and the Z tests of proportions with Yates continuity correction were used to examine the relationship between BPE suppression and pathologic complete response (pCR) in hormone receptor (HR)-positive and HR-negative cohorts. Results A total of 3528 MRI scans from 882 patients (mean age, 48 years ± 10 [standard deviation]) were reviewed and the subset of patients with high-quality BPE segmentation was determined (T1, 433 patients; T2, 396 patients; T3, 380 patients). In the HR-positive cohort, an association between lack of BPE suppression and lower pCR rate was detected at T2 (nonsuppressed vs suppressed, 11.8% [six of 51] vs 28.9% [50 of 173]; difference, 17.1% [95% CI: 4.7, 29.5]; P = .02) and T3 (nonsuppressed vs suppressed, 5.3% [two of 38] vs 27.4% [48 of 175]; difference, 22.2% [95% CI: 10.9, 33.5]; P = .003). In the HR-negative cohort, patients with nonsuppressed BPE had lower estimated pCR rate at all points, but the P values for the association were all greater than .05. Conclusions In hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, lack of background parenchymal enhancement suppression may indicate inferior treatment response. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Philpotts in this issue.

Negative effects of iodine-based contrast agent on renal function in patients with moderate reduced renal function hospitalized for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Kidney disease and renal failure are associated with hospital deaths in patients with COVID - 19. We aimed to test if contrast enhancement affects short-term renal function in hospitalized COVID - 19 patients. METHODS: Plasma creatinine (P-creatinine) was measured on the day of computed tomography (CT) and 24 h, 48 h, and 4-10 days after CT. Contrast-enhanced (n = 142) and unenhanced (n = 24) groups were subdivided, based on estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR), > 60 and ≤ 60 ml/min/1.73 m2. Contrast-induced acute renal failure (CI-AKI) was defined as ≥27 µmol/L increase or a > 50% rise in P-creatinine from CT or initiation of renal replacement therapy during follow-up. Patients with renal replacement therapy were studied separately. We evaluated factors associated with a > 50% rise in P-creatinine at 48 h and at 4-10 days after contrast-enhanced CT. RESULTS: Median P-creatinine at 24-48 h and days 4-10 post-CT in patients with eGFR> 60 and eGFR≥30-60 in contrast-enhanced and unenhanced groups did not differ from basal values. CI-AKI was observed at 48 h and at 4-10 days post contrast administration in 24 and 36% (n = 5/14) of patients with eGFR≥30-60. Corresponding figures in the eGFR> 60 contrast-enhanced CT group were 5 and 5% respectively, (p < 0.037 and p < 0.001, Pearson χ2 test). In the former group, four of the five patients died within 30 days. Odds ratio analysis showed that an eGFR≥30-60 and 30-day mortality were associated with CK-AKI both at 48 h and 4-10 days after contrast-enhanced CT. CONCLUSION: Patients with COVID - 19 and eGFR≥30-60 had a high frequency of CK-AKI at 48 h and at 4-10 days after contrast administration, which was associated with increased 30-day mortality. For patients with eGFR≥30-60, we recommend strict indications are practiced for contrast-enhanced CT. Contrast-enhanced CT had a modest effect in patients with eGFR> 60.

Range of Radiologist Performance in a Population-based Screening Cohort of 1 Million Digital Mammography Examinations.

Background There is great interest in developing artificial intelligence (AI)-based computer-aided detection (CAD) systems for use in screening mammography. Comparative performance benchmarks from true screening cohorts are needed. Purpose To determine the range of human first-reader performance measures within a population-based screening cohort of 1 million screening mammograms to gauge the performance of emerging AI CAD systems. Materials and Methods This retrospective study consisted of all screening mammograms in women aged 40-74 years in Stockholm County, Sweden, who underwent screening with full-field digital mammography between 2008 and 2015. There were 110 interpreting radiologists, of whom 24 were defined as high-volume readers (ie, those who interpreted more than 5000 annual screening mammograms). A true-positive finding was defined as the presence of a pathology-confirmed cancer within 12 months. Performance benchmarks included sensitivity and specificity, examined per quartile of radiologists' performance. First-reader sensitivity was determined for each tumor subgroup, overall and by quartile of high-volume reader sensitivity. Screening outcomes were examined based on the first reader's sensitivity quartile with 10 000 screening mammograms per quartile. Linear regression models were fitted to test for a linear trend across quartiles of performance. Results A total of 418 041 women (mean age, 54 years ± 10 [standard deviation]) were included, and 1 186 045 digital mammograms were evaluated, with 972 899 assessed by high-volume readers. Overall sensitivity was 73% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 69%, 77%), and overall specificity was 96% (95% CI: 95%, 97%). The mean values per quartile of high-volume reader performance ranged from 63% to 84% for sensitivity and from 95% to 98% for specificity. The sensitivity difference was very large for basal cancers, with the least sensitive and most sensitive high-volume readers detecting 53% and 89% of cancers, respectively (P < .001). Conclusion Benchmarks showed a wide range of performance differences between high-volume readers. Sensitivity varied by tumor characteristics. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Comparison of a Deep Learning Risk Score and Standard Mammographic Density Score for Breast Cancer Risk Prediction.

Background Most risk prediction models for breast cancer are based on questionnaires and mammographic density assessments. By training a deep neural network, further information in the mammographic images can be considered. Purpose To develop a risk score that is associated with future breast cancer and compare it with density-based models. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, all women aged 40-74 years within the Karolinska University Hospital uptake area in whom breast cancer was diagnosed in 2013-2014 were included along with healthy control subjects. Network development was based on cases diagnosed from 2008 to 2012. The deep learning (DL) risk score, dense area, and percentage density were calculated for the earliest available digital mammographic examination for each woman. Logistic regression models were fitted to determine the association with subsequent breast cancer. False-negative rates were obtained for the DL risk score, age-adjusted dense area, and age-adjusted percentage density. Results A total of 2283 women, 278 of whom were later diagnosed with breast cancer, were evaluated. The age at mammography (mean, 55.7 years vs 54.6 years; P < .001), the dense area (mean, 38.2 cm2 vs 34.2 cm2; P < .001), and the percentage density (mean, 25.6% vs 24.0%; P < .001) were higher among women diagnosed with breast cancer than in those without a breast cancer diagnosis. The odds ratios and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) were higher for age-adjusted DL risk score than for dense area and percentage density: 1.56 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.48, 1.64; AUC, 0.65), 1.31 (95% CI: 1.24, 1.38; AUC, 0.60), and 1.18 (95% CI: 1.11, 1.25; AUC, 0.57), respectively (P < .001 for AUC). The false-negative rate was lower: 31% (95% CI: 29%, 34%), 36% (95% CI: 33%, 39%; P = .006), and 39% (95% CI: 37%, 42%; P < .001); this difference was most pronounced for more aggressive cancers. Conclusion Compared with density-based models, a deep neural network can more accurately predict which women are at risk for future breast cancer, with a lower false-negative rate for more aggressive cancers. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Bahl in this issue.

Identification of Women at High Risk of Breast Cancer Who Need Supplemental Screening.

Background Mammography screening reduces breast cancer mortality, but a proportion of breast cancers are missed and are detected at later stages or develop during between-screening intervals. Purpose To develop a risk model based on negative mammograms that identifies women likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer before or at the next screening examination. Materials and Methods This study was based on the prospective screening cohort Karolinska Mammography Project for Risk Prediction of Breast Cancer (KARMA), 2011-2017. An image-based risk model was developed by using the Stratus method and computer-aided detection mammographic features (density, masses, microcalcifications), differences in the left and right breasts, and age. The lifestyle extended model included menopausal status, family history of breast cancer, body mass index, hormone replacement therapy, and use of tobacco and alcohol. The genetic extended model included a polygenic risk score with 313 single nucleotide polymorphisms. Age-adjusted relative risks and tumor subtype specific risks were estimated by using logistic regression, and absolute risks were calculated. Results Of 70 877 participants in the KARMA cohort, 974 incident cancers were sampled from 9376 healthy women (mean age, 54 years ± 10 [standard deviation]). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the image-based model was 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71, 0.74). The AUCs for the lifestyle and genetic extended models were 0.74 (95% CI: 0.72, 0.75) and 0.77 (95% CI: 0.75, 0.79), respectively. There was a relative eightfold difference in risk between women at high risk and those at general risk. High-risk women were more likely to be diagnosed with stage II cancers and with tumors 20 mm or larger and were less likely to have stage I and estrogen receptor-positive tumors. The image-based model was validated in three external cohorts. Conclusion By combining three mammographic features, differences in the left and right breasts, and optionally lifestyle factors and family history and a polygenic risk score, the model identified women at high likelihood of being diagnosed with breast cancer within 2 years of a negative screening examination and in possible need of supplemental screening. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

The association between breast cancer risk factors and background parenchymal enhancement at dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI.

BACKGROUND: Background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) of normal tissue at breast magnetic resonance imaging is suggested to be an independent risk factor for breast cancer. Its association with established risk factors for breast cancer is not fully investigated. PURPOSE: To study the association between BPE and risk factors for breast cancer in a healthy, non-high-risk screening population. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We measured BPE and mammographic density and used data from self-reported questionnaires in 214 healthy women aged 43-74 years. We estimated odds ratios for the univariable association between BPE and risk factors. We then fitted an adjusted model using logistic regression to evaluate associations between BPE (high vs. low) and risk factors, including mammographic breast density. RESULTS: The majority of women had low BPE (84%). In a multivariable model, we found statistically significant associations between BPE and age (P = 0.002) and BMI (P = 0.03). We did find a significant association between systemic progesterone medication and BPE, but due to small numbers, the results should be interpreted with caution. The adjusted odds ratio for high BPE was 3.1 among women with density D (compared to B) and 2.1 for density C (compared to B). However, the association between high BPE and density was not statistically significant. We did not find statistically significant associations with any other risk factors. CONCLUSION: Our study confirmed the known association of BPE with age and BMI. Although our results show a higher likelihood for high BPE with increasing levels of mammographic density, the association was not statistically significant.

A Multi-million Mammography Image Dataset and Population-Based Screening Cohort for the Training and Evaluation of Deep Neural Networks-the Cohort of Screen-Aged Women (CSAW).

For AI researchers, access to a large and well-curated dataset is crucial. Working in the field of breast radiology, our aim was to develop a high-quality platform that can be used for evaluation of networks aiming to predict breast cancer risk, estimate mammographic sensitivity, and detect tumors. Our dataset, Cohort of Screen-Aged Women (CSAW), is a population-based cohort of all women 40 to 74 years of age invited to screening in the Stockholm region, Sweden, between 2008 and 2015. All women were invited to mammography screening every 18 to 24 months free of charge. Images were collected from the PACS of the three breast centers that completely cover the region. DICOM metadata were collected together with the images. Screening decisions and clinical outcome data were collected by linkage to the regional cancer center registers. Incident cancer cases, from one center, were pixel-level annotated by a radiologist. A separate subset for efficient evaluation of external networks was defined for the uptake area of one center. The collection and use of the dataset for the purpose of AI research has been approved by the Ethical Review Board. CSAW included 499,807 women invited to screening between 2008 and 2015 with a total of 1,182,733 completed screening examinations. Around 2 million mammography images have currently been collected, including all images for women who developed breast cancer. There were 10,582 women diagnosed with breast cancer; for 8463, it was their first breast cancer. Clinical data include biopsy-verified breast cancer diagnoses, histological origin, tumor size, lymph node status, Elston grade, and receptor status. One thousand eight hundred ninety-one images of 898 women had tumors pixel level annotated including any tumor signs in the prior negative screening mammogram. Our dataset has already been used for evaluation by several research groups. We have defined a high-volume platform for training and evaluation of deep neural networks in the domain of mammographic imaging.

Localized mammographic density is associated with interval cancer and large breast cancer: a nested case-control study.

BACKGROUND: High mammographic density is associated with breast cancer and with delayed detection. We have examined whether localized density, at the site of the subsequent cancer, is independently associated with being diagnosed with a large-sized or interval breast cancer. METHODS: Within a prospective cohort of 63,130 women, we examined 891 women who were diagnosed with incident breast cancer. For 386 women, retrospective localized density assessment was possible. The main outcomes were interval cancer vs. screen-detected cancer and large (> 2 cm) vs. small cancer. In negative screening mammograms, overall and localized density were classified reflecting the BI-RADS standard. Density concordance probabilities were estimated through multinomial regression. The associations between localized density and the two outcomes were modeled through logistic regression, adjusted for overall density, age, body mass index, and other characteristics. RESULTS: The probabilities of concordant localized density were 0.35, 0.60, 0.38, and 0.32 for overall categories "A," "B," "C," and "D." Overall density was associated with large cancer, comparing density category D to A with OR 4.6 (95%CI 1.8-11.6) and with interval cancer OR 31.5 (95%CI 10.9-92) among all women. Localized density was associated with large cancer at diagnosis with OR 11.8 (95%CI 2.7-51.8) among all women and associated with first-year interval cancer with OR 6.4 (0.7 to 58.7) with a significant linear trend p = 0.027. CONCLUSIONS: Overall density often misrepresents localized density at the site where cancer subsequently arises. High localized density is associated with interval cancer and with large cancer. Our findings support the continued effort to develop and examine computer-based measures of localized density for use in personalized breast cancer screening.

Discontinuation of adjuvant hormone therapy among breast cancer patients not previously attending mammography screening.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer patients who have not previously attended mammography screening may be more likely to discontinue adjuvant hormone therapy and therefore have a worse disease prognosis. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study using data from Stockholm Mammography Screening Program, Stockholm-Gotland Breast Cancer Register, Swedish Prescribed Drug Register, and Swedish Cause of Death Register. Women in Stockholm who were diagnosed with breast cancer between 2001 and 2008 were followed until December 31, 2015. Non-participants of mammography screening were defined as women who, prior to their breast cancer diagnosis, were invited for mammography screening but did not attend. RESULTS: Of the 5098 eligible breast cancer patients, 4156 were defined as screening participants and 942 as non-participants. Compared with mammography screening participants, non-participants were more likely to discontinue adjuvant hormone therapy, with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 1.30 (95% CIs, 1.11 to 1.53). Breast cancer patients not participating in mammography screening were also more likely to have worse disease-free survival, even after adjusting for tumor characteristics and other covariates (adjusted HR 1.22 (95% CIs, 1.05 to 1.42 for a breast cancer event). CONCLUSIONS: Targeted interventions to prevent discontinuation of adjuvant hormone therapy are needed to improve breast cancer outcomes among women not attending mammography screening.

Long-term prognostic implications of risk factors associated with tumor size: a case study of women regularly attending screening.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer prognosis is strongly associated with tumor size at diagnosis. We aimed to identify factors associated with diagnosis of large (> 2 cm) compared to small tumors, and to examine implications for long-term prognosis. METHODS: We examined 2012 women with invasive breast cancer, of whom 1466 had screen-detected and 546 interval cancers that were incident between 2001 and 2008 in a population-based screening cohort, and followed them to 31 December 2015. Body mass index (BMI) was ascertained after diagnosis at the time of study enrollment during 2009. PD was measured based on the contralateral mammogram within 3 years before diagnosis. We used multiple logistic regression modeling to examine the association between tumor size and body mass index (BMI), mammographic percent density (PD), or hormonal and genetic risk factors. Associations between the identified risk factors and, in turn, the outcomes of local recurrence, distant metastases, and death (153 events in total) in women with breast cancer were examined using Cox regression. Analyses were carried out according to mode of detection. RESULTS: BMI and PD were the only factors associated with tumor size at diagnosis. For BMI (≥25 vs. < 25 kg/m2), the multiple adjusted odds ratios (OR) were 1.37 (95% CI 1.02-1.83) and 2.12 (95% CI 1.41-3.18), for screen-detected and interval cancers, respectively. For PD (≥20 vs. < 20%), the corresponding ORs were 1.72 (95% CI 1.29-2.30) and 0.60 (95% CI 0.40-0.90). Among women with interval cancers, those with high BMI had worse prognosis than women with low BMI (hazard ratio 1.70; 95% CI 1.04-2.77), but PD was not associated with the hazard rate. Among screen-detected cancers, neither BMI nor PD was associated with the hazard rate. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, high BMI was associated with the risk of having a tumor larger than 2 cm at diagnosis. Among women with interval cancer, high BMI was associated with worse prognosis. We believe that women with high BMI should be especially encouraged to attend screening.

Longitudinal fluctuation in mammographic percent density differentiates between interval and screen-detected breast cancer.

Interval breast cancer (IC) has a more aggressive phenotype and higher mortality than screen-detected cancer (SDC). In this case-case study, we investigated whether the size of longitudinal fluctuations in mammographic percent density (PD fluctuation) was associated with the ratio of IC versus SDC among screened women with breast cancer. The primary study population consisted of 1,414 postmenopausal breast cancer cases, and the validation population of 1,241 cases. We calculated PD fluctuation as the quadratic mean of deviations between actual PD and the long-term trend estimated by a mixed effects model. In a logistic regression model we examined the association between PD fluctuation and IC versus SDC including adjustments for PD at last screening, age at diagnosis, BMI and hormone replacement therapy. All statistical tests were two-sided. There were 385 IC and 1,029 SDC in the primary study population, with PD fluctuations of 0.44 and 0.41 respectively (p = 0.0309). After adjustments, PD fluctuation was associated with an increased ratio of IC versus SDC, with an estimated per-standard deviation odds ratio of 1.17 (95% CI = 1.03-1.33), compared to 1.19 (95% CI = 1.04-1.38) in the validation population. In screened women with breast cancer, high fluctuation in mammographic percent density was associated with an increased ratio of IC versus SDC. Whether this is entirely related to a reduced mammographic detectability or to a biological phenotype promoting faster tumor growth remains to be elucidated.

Novel mammographic image features differentiate between interval and screen-detected breast cancer: a case-case study.

BACKGROUND: Interval breast cancers are often diagnosed at a more advanced stage than screen-detected cancers. Our aim was to identify features in screening mammograms of the normal breast that would differentiate between future interval cancers and screen-detected cancers, and to understand how each feature affects tumor detectability. METHODS: From a population-based cohort of invasive breast cancer cases in Stockholm-Gotland, Sweden, diagnosed from 2001 to 2008, we analyzed the contralateral mammogram at the preceding negative screening of 394 interval cancer cases and 1009 screen-detected cancers. We examined 32 different image features in digitized film mammograms, based on three alternative dense area identification methods, by a set of logistic regression models adjusted for percent density with interval cancer versus screen-detected cancer as the outcome. Features were forward-selected into a multiple logistic regression model adjusted for mammographic percent density, age, BMI and use of hormone replacement therapy. The associations of the identified features were assessed also in a sample from an independent cohort. RESULTS: Two image features, 'skewness of the intensity gradient' and 'eccentricity', were associated with the risk of interval compared with screen-detected cancer. For the first feature, the per-standard deviation odds ratios were 1.32 (95 % CI: 1.12 to 1.56) and 1.21 (95 % CI: 1.04 to 1.41) in the primary and validation cohort respectively. For the second feature, they were 1.20 (95 % CI: 1.04 to 1.39) and 1.17 (95%CI: 0.98 to 1.39) respectively. The first feature was associated with the tumor size at screen detection, while the second feature was associated with the tumor size at interval detection. CONCLUSIONS: We identified two novel mammographic features in screening mammograms of the normal breast that differentiated between future interval cancers and screen-detected cancers. We present a starting point for further research into features beyond percent density that might be relevant for interval cancer, and suggest ways to use this information to improve screening.

Women's perceptions and attitudes towards the use of AI in mammography in Sweden: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Understanding women's perspectives can help to create an effective and acceptable artificial intelligence (AI) implementation for triaging mammograms, ensuring a high proportion of screening-detected cancer. This study aimed to explore Swedish women's perceptions and attitudes towards the use of AI in mammography. METHOD: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 16 women recruited in the spring of 2023 at Capio S:t Görans Hospital, Sweden, during an ongoing clinical trial of AI in screening (ScreenTrustCAD, NCT04778670) with Philips equipment. The interview transcripts were analysed using inductive thematic content analysis. RESULTS: In general, women viewed AI as an excellent complementary tool to help radiologists in their decision-making, rather than a complete replacement of their expertise. To trust the AI, the women requested a thorough evaluation, transparency about AI usage in healthcare, and the involvement of a radiologist in the assessment. They would rather be more worried because of being called in more often for scans than risk having overlooked a sign of cancer. They expressed substantial trust in the healthcare system if the implementation of AI was to become a standard practice. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that the interviewed women, in general, hold a positive attitude towards the implementation of AI in mammography; nonetheless, they expect and demand more from an AI than a radiologist. Effective communication regarding the role and limitations of AI is crucial to ensure that patients understand the purpose and potential outcomes of AI-assisted healthcare.

AI-based selection of individuals for supplemental MRI in population-based breast cancer screening: the randomized ScreenTrustMRI trial.

Screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality, but studies analyzing interval cancers diagnosed after negative screens have shown that many cancers are missed. Supplemental screening using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can reduce the number of missed cancers. However, as qualified MRI staff are lacking, the equipment is expensive to purchase and cost-effectiveness for screening may not be convincing, the utilization of MRI is currently limited. An effective method for triaging individuals to supplemental MRI screening is therefore needed. We conducted a randomized clinical trial, ScreenTrustMRI, using a recently developed artificial intelligence (AI) tool to score each mammogram. We offered trial participation to individuals with a negative screening mammogram and a high AI score (top 6.9%). Upon agreeing to participate, individuals were assigned randomly to one of two groups: those receiving supplemental MRI and those not receiving MRI. The primary endpoint of ScreenTrustMRI is advanced breast cancer defined as either interval cancer, invasive component larger than 15 mm or lymph node positive cancer, based on a 27-month follow-up time from the initial screening. Secondary endpoints, prespecified in the study protocol to be reported before the primary outcome, include cancer detected by supplemental MRI, which is the focus of the current paper. Compared with traditional breast density measures used in a previous clinical trial, the current AI method was nearly four times more efficient in terms of cancers detected per 1,000 MRI examinations (64 versus 16.5). Most additional cancers detected were invasive and several were multifocal, suggesting that their detection was timely. Altogether, our results show that using an AI-based score to select a small proportion (6.9%) of individuals for supplemental MRI after negative mammography detects many missed cancers, making the cost per cancer detected comparable with screening mammography. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT04832594 .