Tag: mammography

AI’s Impact on Breast Screening

Posted on by Brian Casey

One of the most exciting radiology use cases for AI is in breast screening. At last week’s RSNA 2023 show, a paper highlighted the technology’s potential for helping breast imagers focus on cases more likely to have cancer.

Looking for cancers on screening mammography has been compared to finding a needle in a haystack, and as such it’s considered to be one of the areas where AI can best help. 

  • One of the earliest use cases was in identifying suspicious breast lesions during radiologist interpretation (remember computer-aided detection?), but more recently researchers have focused on using AI as a triage tool, by identifying cases most likely to be normal that could be removed from the radiologist’s urgent worklist. Studies have found that 30-40% of breast screening cases could be read by AI alone or triaged to a low-suspicion list.

But what impact would AI-based breast screening triage have on radiologist metrics such as recall rate? 

  • To answer this question, researchers from NYU Langone Health prospectively tested their homegrown AI algorithm for analyzing DBT screening cases.

The algorithm was trained to identify extremely low-risk cases that could be triaged from the worklist while more complex cases where the AI was uncertain were sent to radiologists, who knew in advance the cases they were reading were more complicated. In 11.7k screening mammograms, researchers examined recall rates over two periods, one before AI triage and one after, finding: 

  • The overall recall rate went from 13% before the triage period to 15% after 
  • Recall rates for complex cases went from 17% to 20%
  • Recall rates for extremely low-risk studies went from 6% to 5%
  • There were no statistically significant differences in any of the comparisons
  • No change in median self-reported perceived difficulty of reading from the triage lists compared to non-triage list, regardless of years of experience

In future work, the NYU Langone researchers will continue their study to look at AI’s impact on cancer detection rate, biopsy rate, positive predictive value, and other metrics.

The Takeaway

The NYU Langone study puts a US spin on research like MASAI from Sweden, in which AI was able to reduce radiologists’ breast screening workload by 44%. Given the differences in screening protocols between the US and Europe, it’s important to assess how AI affects workload between the regions.

Further work is needed in this ongoing study, but early results indicate that AI can triage complex cases without having an undue impact on recall rate or self-perceived difficulty in interpreting exams – a surrogate measure for burnout.

Uneven Success Against Breast Cancer

Posted on by Brian Casey

The decline in breast cancer mortality has been one of public health’s major success stories. But when you look at it from a global perspective, it’s the best of times and the worst of times. 

That’s because success in fighting breast cancer has been uneven around the world. While countries in North America, Western Europe, and Oceania have seen dramatic declines in breast cancer mortality and advanced-stage disease, other regions continue to be plagued by what really is becoming a survivable disease for most women. 

A new study in JAMA Oncology points out these disparities, documenting major differences in rates of advanced breast disease between countries in what researchers said was the most comprehensive review to date of global differences in breast cancer stage at diagnosis. 

  • Researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 133 studies covering 2.4M women across 81 nations over the past two decades, documenting differences in rates of advanced breast disease at diagnosis both over time and between countries. 

While most high-income nations have seen declines in rates of distant metastatic disease over the past 20 years, advanced-stage disease remains stubbornly common in lower middle-income countries. Researchers found: 

  • Rates of distant metastatic disease varied across countries by region, with sub-Saharan Africa the highest and North America the lowest (6-31% vs. 0-6%)
  • Lower socioeconomic status was tied to more advanced disease when women in the most disadvantaged group were compared to least disadvantaged (3-11% vs. 2-8%)
  • There were pronounced disparities even in high-resource countries with established screening programs, as rates of metastatic disease were twice as high in women of low socioeconomic status (SES) compared to high SES women, such as in the US (8% vs. 4%) 
  • Older women had a much higher prevalence of advanced disease across different countries compared to younger women (range of 4-34% vs. 2-16%), a phenomenon that could be because most screening programs stop at age 75
  • 40% of countries did not meet the Global Breast Cancer Initiative goal of having 60% or more of patients diagnosed at stage I or II

The Takeaway

The new findings indicate that it’s too soon to take a victory lap in the battle against breast cancer. While progress at higher socioeconomic levels in high-income countries has been impressive, breast cancer remains a scourge among more disadvantaged women and across wide regions of the world.

Can AI Direct Breast MRI?

Posted on by Brian Casey

A deep learning algorithm trained to analyze mammography images did a better job than traditional risk models in predicting breast cancer risk. The study shows the AI model could direct the use of supplemental screening breast MRI for women who need it most. 

Breast MRI has emerged (along with ultrasound) as one of the most effective imaging modalities to supplement conventional X-ray-based mammography. Breast MRI performs well regardless of breast tissue density, and can even be used for screening younger high-risk women for whom radiation is a concern. 

But there are also disadvantages to breast MRI. It’s expensive and time-consuming, and clinicians aren’t always sure which women should get it. As a result, breast MRI is used too often in women at average risk and not often enough in those at high risk. 

In the current study in Radiology, researchers from MGH compared the Mirai deep learning algorithm to conventional risk-prediction models. Mirai was developed at MIT to predict five-year breast cancer risk, and the first papers on the model emerged in 2019; previous studies have already demonstrated the algorithm’s prowess for risk prediction. 

Mirai was used to analyze mammograms and develop risk scores for 2.2k women who also received 4.2k screening breast MRI exams from 2017-2020 at four facilities. Researchers then compared the performance of the algorithm to traditional risk tools like Tyrer-Cuzick and NCI’s Breast Cancer Risk Assessment (BCRAT), finding that … 

  • In women Mirai identified as high risk, the cancer detection rate per 1k on breast MRI was far higher compared to those classified as high risk by Tyrer-Cuzick and BCRAT (20.6 vs. 6.0 & 6.8)
  • Mirai had a higher PPV for predicting abnormal findings on breast MRI screening (14.6% vs. 5.0% & 5.5%)
  • Mirai scored higher in PPV of biopsies recommended (32.4% vs. 12.7% & 11.1%) and PPV for biopsies performed (36.4% vs. 13.5% & 12.5%)

The Takeaway
Breast imaging has become one of the AI use cases with the most potential, based on recent studies like PERFORMS and MASAI, and the new study shows Mirai could be useful in directing women to breast MRI screening. Like the previous studies, the current research is pointing to a near-term future in which AI and deep learning can make breast screening more accurate and cost-effective than it’s ever been before. 

Tipping Point for Breast AI?

Posted on by Brian Casey

Have we reached a tipping point when it comes to AI for breast screening? This week another study was published – this one in Radiology – demonstrating the value of AI for interpreting screening mammograms. 

Of all the medical imaging exams, breast screening probably could use the most help. Reading mammograms has been compared to looking for a needle in a haystack, with radiologists reviewing thousands of images before finding a single cancer. 

AI could help in multiple ways, either at the radiologist’s side during interpretation or by reviewing mammograms in advance, triaging the ones most likely to be normal while reserving suspicious exams for closer attention by radiologists (indeed, that was the approach used in the MASAI study in Sweden in August).

In the new study, UK researchers in the PERFORMS trial compared the performance of Lunit’s INSIGHT MMG AI algorithm to that of 552 radiologists in 240 test mammogram cases, finding that …

  • AI was comparable to radiologists for sensitivity (91% vs. 90%, P=0.26) and specificity (77% vs. 76%, P=0.85). 
  • There was no statistically significant difference in AUC (0.93 vs. 0.88, P=0.15)
  • AI and radiologists were comparable or no different with other metrics

Like the MASAI trial, the PERFORMS results show that AI could play an important role in breast screening. To that end, a new paper in European Journal of Radiology proposes a roadmap for implementing mammography AI as part of single-reader breast screening programs, offering suggestions on prospective clinical trials that should take place to prove breast AI is ready for widespread use in the NHS – and beyond. 

The Takeaway

It certainly does seem that AI for breast screening has reached a tipping point. Taken together, PERFORMS and MASAI show that mammography AI works well enough that “the days of double reading are numbered,” at least where it is practiced in Europe, as noted in an editorial by Liane Philpotts, MD. 

While double-reading isn’t practiced in the US, the PERFORMS protocol could be used to supplement non-specialized radiologists who don’t see that many mammograms, Philpotts notes. Either way, AI looks poised to make a major impact in breast screening on both sides of the Atlantic.

Screening Foes Strike Back

Posted on by Brian Casey

Opponents of population-based cancer screening aren’t going away anytime soon. Just weeks after publication of a landmark study claiming that cancer screening has saved $7T over 25 years, screening foes published a counterattack in JAMA Internal Medicine casting doubt on whether screening has any value at all. 

Population-based cancer screening has been controversial since the first programs were launched decades ago. 

  • A vocal minority of skeptics continues to raise concerns about screening, despite the fact that mortality rates have dropped and survival rates have increased for the four cancers targeted by population screening.

This week’s JAMA Internal Medicine featured a series of articles that cast doubt on screening. In the main study, researchers performed a meta-analysis of 18 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) covering 2.1M people for six major screening tests, including mammography, CT lung cancer screening, and colon and PSA tests. 

  • The authors, led by Norwegian gastroenterologist Michael Bretthauer, MD, PhD, concluded that only flexible sigmoidoscopy for colon cancer produced a gain in lifetimes. They conclude that RCTs to date haven’t included enough patients who were followed over enough years to show screening has an effect on all-cause mortality.

But a deeper dive into the study produces interesting revelations. For CT lung cancer screening, Bretthauer et al didn’t include the landmark National Lung Screening Trial, an RCT that showed a 20% mortality reduction from screening.

  • With respect to breast imaging, the researchers only included three studies, even though there have been eight major mammography RCTs performed. And one of the three included was the controversial Canadian National Breast Screening Study, originally conducted in the 1980s.

When it comes to colon screening, Bretthauer included his own controversial 2022 NordICC study in his meta-analysis. 

  • The NordICC study found that if a person is invited to colon screening but doesn’t follow through, they don’t experience a mortality benefit. But those who actually got colon screening saw a 50% mortality reduction.  

Other articles in this week’s JAMA Internal Medicine series were penned by researchers well known for their opposition to population-based screening, including Gilbert Welch, MD, and Rita Redberg, MD.

The Takeaway

There’s an old saying in statistics: “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.” Among major academic journals, JAMA Internal Medicine – which Redberg guided for 14 years as editor until she stepped down in June – has consistently been the most hostile toward screening and new medical technology.

In the end, the arguments being made by screening’s foes would carry more weight if they were coming from researchers and journals that haven’t already demonstrated a longstanding, ingrained bias against population-based cancer screening.

Value of Cancer Screening

Posted on by Brian Casey

A new study claims that medical screening for diseases like breast and cervical cancer has saved lives and generated value of at least $7.5T (yes, trillion) over the last 25 years. The findings, published in BMC Health Services Research, are a stunning rebuke to critics of screening exams.

While the vast majority of doctors and public health officials support evidence-based screening, a vocal minority of skeptics continues to raise questions about screening’s efficacy. These critics emphasize the “harms” of screening, such as overdiagnosis and patient anxiety – an accusation often levied against breast screening. 

Screening’s critics also target the downstream costs of medical tests intended to confirm suspicious findings. They argue that a single screen-detected finding can lead to a cascade of additional healthcare spending that drives up medical costs.

But the new study offers a counter-argument, putting a dollar figure on how much screening exams have saved by detecting disease earlier, when it can be treated more effectively. 

The research focused on the four main cancer screening tests – breast, cervical, colon, and lung cancer – analyzing the impact of preventive screening on life-years saved and its economic impact from 1996 to 2020, finding …

  • Americans enjoyed at least 12M more years of life thanks to cancer screening
  • The economic value of these life-years added up to at least $7.5T
  • If everyone who qualified for screening exams got them, it would save at least another 3.3M life-years and $1.7T in economic impact
  • Cervical cancer screening had by far the biggest economic impact ($5.2T-$5.7T), followed by breast ($0.8T-$1.9T), colorectal ($0.4T-$1T), and finally lung ($40B). 

Lung cancer’s paltry value was due to a small eligible population and low screening adherence rates. This finding is underscored by a new article in STAT that ponders why CT lung cancer screening rates are so low, with one observer calling it the “redheaded stepchild” of screening tests.  

The Takeaway
Screening skeptics have been taking it on the chin lately (witness the USPSTF’s U-turn on mammography for younger women) and the new findings will be another blow. We may continue to see a dribble of papers on the “harms” of overdiagnosis, but the momentum is definitely shifting in screening’s favor – to the benefit of patients.

Mammography AI’s Leap Forward

Posted on by Brian Casey

A new study out of Sweden offers a resounding vote of confidence in the use of AI for analyzing screening mammograms. Published in The Lancet Oncology, researchers found that AI cut radiologist workload almost by half without affecting cancer detection or recall rates.

AI has been promoted as the technology that could save radiology from rising imaging volumes, growing burnout, and pressure to perform at a higher level with fewer resources. But many radiology professionals remember similar promises made in the 1990s around computer-aided detection (CAD), which failed to live up to the hype.

Breast screening presents a particular challenge in Europe, where clinical guidelines call for all screening exams to be double-read by two radiologists – leading to better sensitivity but also imposing a higher workload. AI could help by working as a triage tool, enabling radiologists to only double-read those cases most likely to have cancer.

In the MASAI study, researchers are assessing AI for breast screening in 100k women in a population-based screening program in Sweden, with mammograms being analyzed by ScreenPoint’s Transpara version 1.7.0 software. In an in-progress analysis, researchers looked at results for 80k mammography-eligible women ages 40-80. 

The Transpara software applies a 10-point score to mammograms; in MASAI those scored 1-9 are read by a single radiologist, while those scored 10 are read by two breast radiologists. This technique was compared to double-reading, finding that:

  • AI reduced the mammography reading workload by almost 37k screening mammograms, or 44%
  • AI had a higher cancer detection rate per 1k screened participants (6.1 vs. 5.1) although the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.052)
  • Recall rates were comparable (2.2% vs. 2.0%)

The results demonstrate the safety of using AI as a triage tool, and the MASAI researchers plan to continue the study until it reaches 100k participants so they can measure the impact of AI on detection of interval cancers – cancers that appear between screening rounds.

The Takeaway

It’s hard to overestimate the MASAI study’s significance. The findings strongly support what AI proponents have been saying all along – that AI can save radiologists time while maintaining diagnostic performance. The question is the extent to which the MASAI results will apply outside of the double-reading environment, or to other clinical use cases.

Taking Ultrasound Beyond Breast Density

Posted on by Brian Casey

When should breast ultrasound be used as part of mammography screening? It’s often used in cases of dense breast tissue, but other factors should also come into play, say researchers in a new study in Cancer. 

Conventional X-ray mammography has difficulties when used for screening women with dense breast tissue, so supplemental modalities like ultrasound and MRI are called into play. But focusing too much on breast density alone could mean that many women who are at high risk of breast cancer don’t get the additional imaging they need.

To study this issue, researchers analyzed the risk of mammography screening failures (defined as interval invasive cancer or advanced cancer) in ~825k screening mammograms in ~377k women, and more than ~38k screening ultrasound studies in ~29k women. All exams were acquired from 2014 to 2020 at 32 healthcare facilities across the US.

Researchers then compared the mammography failure rate in women who got ultrasound and mammography to those who got mammography alone. Their findings included: 

  • Ultrasound was appropriately targeted at women with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts, with 95.3% getting scans
  • However, based on their complete risk factor profile, women with dense breasts who got ultrasound had only a modestly higher risk of interval breast cancer compared to women who only got mammography (23.7% vs. 18.5%) 
  • More than half of women undergoing ultrasound screening had low or average risk of an interval breast cancer based on their risk factor profile, despite having dense breasts
  • The risk of advanced cancer was very close between the two groups (32.0% vs. 30.5%), suggesting that a large fraction of women at risk of advanced cancer are getting only mammography screening with no supplemental imaging

The Takeaway 

On the positive side, ultrasound is being widely used in women with dense breast tissue, indicating success in identifying these women and getting them the supplemental imaging they need. But the high rate of advanced cancer in women who only received mammography indicates that consideration of other risk factors – such as family history of breast cancer and body mass index – is necessary beyond just breast tissue density to identify women in need of supplemental imaging. 

A New Day for Breast Screening

Posted on by Brian Casey

In a breathtaking about-face, the USPSTF said it would reverse 14 years of guidance in breast screening and lower its recommended starting age for routine mammography to 40.

In a proposed guidance, USPSTF said it would recommend screening for women every other year starting at age 40 and continuing through 74. The task force called for research into additional screening with breast ultrasound or MRI for women with dense breasts, and on screening in women older than 75.

The move will reverse a policy USPSTF put in place in 2009, when it withdrew its recommendation that all women start screening at 40, instead advising women in their 40s to consult with their physicians about starting screening. Routine mammography was advised starting at age 50. The move drew widespread condemnation from women’s health advocates, but the USPSTF stuck to the policy even through a 2016 revision.

The task force remained steadfast even as studies showed that the 2009 policy change led to confusion and lower breast screening attendance. The change also gave fuel to anti-mammography extremists who questioned whether any breast screening was a good idea.

That all changes now. In its announcement of the 2023 guidance, USPSTF said it based the new policy on its review of the 2016 update. No new RCTs on breast screening have been conducted for decades (it’s considered unethical to deny screening to women in a control group), so the task force commissioned collaborative modeling studies from CISNET.

USPSTF said the following findings factored into its decision to change the guidance: 

  • Biennial screening from 40-74 would avert 1.3 additional breast cancer deaths per 1,000 women screened compared to biennial screening of women 50-74.
  • The benefits of screening at 40 would be even greater for Black women, at 1.8 deaths averted. 
  • The incidence rate of invasive breast cancer for women 40-49 has increased 2.0% annually from 2015-2019, a higher rate than in previous years. 
  • Biennial screening results in greater incremental life-years gained and mortality reduction per mammogram and better balance of benefits to harms compared to annual screening.

The Takeaway 

As with the FDA’s recent decision to require density reporting nationwide, the USPSTF’s proposal to move the starting age for mammography screening to 40 was long overdue. The question now is how long it will take to repair 14 years of lost momentum and eliminate confusion about breast screening.

Learning Curve in DBT Screening

Posted on by Brian Casey

Digital breast tomosynthesis continues to evolve. First introduced initially as a problem-solving tool in breast imaging, DBT is becoming the workhorse modality for breast screening as well. 

But DBT still requires some adjustment when used for screening. In a study of nearly 15k women in European Radiology, Swedish researchers describe how the false-positive recall rate for DBT cancer screening started higher but then fell over time as radiologists got used to the appearance of lesions on DBT exams.

The Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial was set up to compare one-view DBT to two-view digital mammography for breast screening. Unlike some DBT screening trials, the study did not use synthesized 2D DBT images. DBT images were acquired 2010-2015 with Siemens Healthineers’ Mammomat Inspiration system. 

Findings in the study included: 

  • DBT had a sharply higher false-positive recall rate in year 1 of the study compared to DM (2.6% vs. 0.5%)
  • DBT’s recall rate fell over the five-year course of the study, stabilizing at 1.5% 
  • Recall rates for DM varied between 0.5% and 1% over five years
  • Most of the DBT recalls (37.3%) were for stellate lesions, in which spicules radiate out from a central point or mass. With DM, only 24.0% of recalls were for stellate lesions
  • The number of stellate distortions being recalled with DBT declined over time, a trend the authors attributed to a learning curve in reading DBT images

The authors said that the DBT false-positive recall rate in their study was “in general low” compared to other European trials. They claimed that MBTST is among the first studies to analyze recall rates by lesion appearance, an important point because radiologists may see a different distribution of lesion types on screening DBT compared to what they’re used to with DM.

The Takeaway 

The Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial was one of the first to investigate DBT for breast screening, and previous MBTST research showed that DBT can also reduce interval cancers, which occur between screening rounds. 

The new findings offer further support for DBT breast screening and give hope that whatever shortcomings the technology might have early on in a screening role can be addressed through training and experience. It also confirms recent research indicating that DBT has become the new gold standard for breast screening.

Get every issue of The Imaging Wire, delivered right to your inbox.

You might also like..

Select All

You're signed up!

It's great to have you as a reader. Check your inbox for a welcome email.

-- The Imaging Wire team

You're all set!