Reduction of False-Positive Markings on Mammograms: a Retrospective Comparison Study Using an Artificial Intelligence-Based CAD.

The aim was to determine whether an artificial intelligence (AI)-based, computer-aided detection (CAD) software can be used to reduce false positive per image (FPPI) on mammograms as compared to an FDA-approved conventional CAD. A retrospective study was performed on a set of 250 full-field digital mammograms between January 1, 2013, and March 31, 2013, and the number of marked regions of interest of two different systems was compared for sensitivity and specificity in cancer detection. The count of false-positive marks per image (FPPI) of the two systems was also evaluated as well as the number of cases that were completely mark-free. All results showed statistically significant reductions in false marks with the use of AI-CAD vs CAD (confidence interval = 95%) with no reduction in sensitivity. There is an overall 69% reduction in FPPI using the AI-based CAD as compared to CAD, consisting of 83% reduction in FPPI for calcifications and 56% reduction for masses. Almost half (48%) of cases showed no AI-CAD markings while only 17% show no conventional CAD marks. There was a significant reduction in FPPI with AI-CAD as compared to CAD for both masses and calcifications at all tissue densities. A 69% decrease in FPPI could result in a 17% decrease in radiologist reading time per case based on prior literature of CAD reading times. Additionally, decreasing false-positive recalls in screening mammography has many direct social and economic benefits.

Improved Cancer Detection Using Artificial Intelligence: a Retrospective Evaluation of Missed Cancers on Mammography.

To determine whether cmAssist™, an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided detection (AI-CAD) algorithm, can be used to improve radiologists' sensitivity in breast cancer screening and detection. A blinded retrospective study was performed with a panel of seven radiologists using a cancer-enriched data set from 122 patients that included 90 false-negative mammograms obtained up to 5.8 years prior to diagnosis and 32 BIRADS 1 and 2 patients with a 2-year follow-up of negative diagnosis. The mammograms were performed between February 7, 2008 (earliest) and January 8, 2016 (latest), and were all originally interpreted as negative in conjunction with R2 ImageChecker CAD, version 10.0. In this study, the readers analyzed the 122 studies before and after review of cmAssist™, an AI-CAD software for mammography. The statistical significance of our findings was evaluated using Student's t test and bootstrap statistical analysis. There was a substantial and significant improvement in radiologist accuracy with use of cmAssist, as demonstrated in the 7.2% increase in the area-under-the-curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve with two-sided p value < 0.01 for the reader group. All radiologists showed a significant improvement in their cancer detection rate (CDR) with the use of cmAssist (two-sided p value = 0.030, confidence interval = 95%). The readers detected between 25 and 71% (mean 51%) of the early cancers without assistance. With cmAssist, the overall reader CDR was 41 to 76% (mean 62%). The percentage increase in CDR for the reader panel was significant, ranging from 6 to 64% (mean 27%) with the use of cmAssist. There was less than 1% increase in the readers' false-positive recalls with use of cmAssist. With the use of cmAssist TM, there was a substantial and statistically significant improvement in radiologists' accuracy and sensitivity for detection of cancers that were originally missed. The percentage increase in CDR for the radiologists in the reader panel ranged from 6 to 64% (mean 27%) with the use of cmAssist, with negligible increase in false-positive recalls.

Mammographic Breast Density Model Using Semi-Supervised Learning Reduces Inter-/Intra-Reader Variability.

Breast density is an important risk factor for breast cancer development; however, imager inconsistency in density reporting can lead to patient and clinician confusion. A deep learning (DL) model for mammographic density grading was examined in a retrospective multi-reader multi-case study consisting of 928 image pairs and assessed for impact on inter- and intra-reader variability and reading time. Seven readers assigned density categories to the images, then re-read the test set aided by the model after a 4-week washout. To measure intra-reader agreement, 100 image pairs were blindly double read in both sessions. Linear Cohen Kappa (κ) and Student's t-test were used to assess the model and reader performance. The model achieved a κ of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.84, 0.89) for four-class density assessment and a κ of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.88, 0.93) for binary non-dense/dense assessment. Superiority tests showed significant reduction in inter-reader variability (κ improved from 0.70 to 0.88, p ≤ 0.001) and intra-reader variability (κ improved from 0.83 to 0.95, p ≤ 0.01) for four-class density, and significant reduction in inter-reader variability (κ improved from 0.77 to 0.96, p ≤ 0.001) and intra-reader variability (κ improved from 0.89 to 0.97, p ≤ 0.01) for binary non-dense/dense assessment when aided by DL. The average reader mean reading time per image pair also decreased by 30%, 0.86 s (95% CI: 0.01, 1.71), with six of seven readers having reading time reductions.

Multicenter, Multivendor Validation of an FDA-approved Algorithm for Mammography Triage.

OBJECTIVE: Artificial intelligence (AI)-based triage algorithms may improve cancer detection and expedite radiologist workflow. To this end, the performance of a commercial AI-based triage algorithm on screening mammograms was evaluated across breast densities and lesion types. METHODS: This retrospective, IRB-exempt, multicenter, multivendor study examined 1255 screening 4-view mammograms (400 positive and 855 negative studies). Images were anonymized by providing institutions and analyzed by a commercially available AI algorithm (cmTriage, CureMetrix, La Jolla, CA) that performed retrospective triage at the study level by flagging exams as "suspicious" or not. Sensitivities and specificities with confidence intervals were derived from area under the curve (AUC) calculations. RESULTS: The algorithm demonstrated an AUC of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.94-0.96) for case identification. Area under the curve held across densities (0.95) and lesion types (masses: 0.94 [95% CI: 0.92-0.96] or microcalcifications: 0.97 [95% CI: 0.96-0.99]). The algorithm has a default sensitivity of 93% (95% CI: 95.6%-90.5%) with specificity of 76.3% (95% CI: 79.2%-73.4%). To evaluate real-world performance, a sensitivity of 86.9% (95% CI: 83.6%-90.2%) was tested, as observed for practicing radiologists by the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) study. The resulting specificity was 88.5% (95% CI: 86.4%-90.7%), similar to the BCSC specificity of 88.9%, indicating performance comparable to real-world results. CONCLUSION: When tested for lesion detection, an AI-based triage software can perform at the level of practicing radiologists. Drawing attention to suspicious exams may improve reader specificity and help streamline radiologist workflow, enabling faster turnaround times and improving care.

Image-guided epidural steroid injections.

Epidural steroid injection has been proven to be useful in the treatment of acute lumbosacral radicular pain syndromes. The use of image guidance significantly increases accuracy and decreases complication rates. The technique of performing these injections, including translaminar approach, is described in this article. Necessary precautions and potential risks are also described.