Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Depiction of breast cancers on digital mammograms by artificial intelligence-based computer-assisted diagnosis according to cancer characteristics

  • Breast
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate how breast cancers are depicted by artificial intelligence–based computer-assisted diagnosis (AI-CAD) according to clinical, radiological, and pathological factors.

Materials and methods

From January 2017 to December 2017, 896 patients diagnosed with 930 breast cancers were enrolled in this retrospective study. Commercial AI-CAD was applied to digital mammograms and abnormality scores were obtained. We evaluated the abnormality score according to clinical, radiological, and pathological characteristics. False-negative results were defined by abnormality scores less than 10.

Results

The median abnormality score of 930 breasts was 87.4 (range 0–99). The false-negative rate of AI-CAD was 19.4% (180/930). Cancers with an abnormality score of more than 90 showed a high proportion of palpable lesions, BI-RADS 4c and 5 lesions, cancers presenting as mass with or without microcalcifications and invasive cancers compared with low-scored cancers (all p < 0.001). False-negative cancers were more likely to develop in asymptomatic patients and extremely dense breasts and to be diagnosed as occult breast cancers and DCIS compared to detected cancers.

Conclusion

Breast cancers depicted with high abnormality scores by AI-CAD are associated with higher BI-RADS category, invasive pathology, and higher cancer stage.

Key Points

• High-scored cancers by AI-CAD included a high proportion of BI-RADS 4c and 5 lesions, masses with or without microcalcifications, and cancers with invasive pathology.

• Among invasive cancers, cancers with higher T and N stage and HER2-enriched subtype were depicted with higher abnormality scores by AI-CAD.

• Cancers missed by AI-CAD tended to be in asymptomatic patients and extremely dense breasts and to be diagnosed as occult breast cancers by radiologists.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Abbreviations

AI-CAD :

Artificial Intelligence–based computer-assisted diagnosis

BI-RADS :

American College of Radiology Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System

DCIS:

Ductal carcinoma in situ

HER2 :

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2

US :

Ultrasound

References

  1. Marmot MG, Altman DG, Cameron DA, Dewar JA, Thompson SG, Wilcox M (2013) The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Br J Cancer 108:2205–2240

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen TH et al (2011) Swedish two-county trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades. Radiology 260:658–663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Tabar L, Yen AM, Wu WY et al (2015) Insights from the breast cancer screening trials: how screening affects the natural history of breast cancer and implications for evaluating service screening programs. Breast J 21:13–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Salim M, Dembrower K, Eklund M, Lindholm P, Strand F (2020) Range of radiologist performance in a population-based screening cohort of 1 million digital mammography examinations. Radiology 297:33–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kim H-E, Kim HH, Han B-K et al (2020) Changes in cancer detection and false-positive recall in mammography using artificial intelligence: a retrospective, multireader study. Lancet Digital Health 2:e138–e148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. McKinney SM, Sieniek M, Godbole V et al (2020) International evaluation of an AI system for breast cancer screening. Nature 577:89–94

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Rodriguez-Ruiz A, Krupinski E, Mordang JJ et al (2019) Detection of breast cancer with mammography: effect of an artificial intelligence support system. Radiology 290:305–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Benedikt RA, Boatsman JE, Swann CA, Kirkpatrick AD, Toledano AY (2018) Concurrent computer-aided detection improves reading time of digital breast tomosynthesis and maintains interpretation performance in a multireader multicase study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 210:685–694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Rodriguez-Ruiz A, Lang K, Gubern-Merida A et al (2019) Stand-alone artificial intelligence for breast cancer detection in mammography: comparison with 101 radiologists. J Natl Cancer Inst 111:916–922

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Schaffter T, Buist DSM, Lee CI et al (2020) Evaluation of combined artificial intelligence and radiologist assessment to interpret screening mammograms. JAMA Netw Open 3:e200265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gao Y, Geras KJ, Lewin AA, Moy L (2019) New frontiers: an update on computer-aided diagnosis for breast imaging in the age of artificial intelligence. AJR Am J Roentgenol 212:300–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Erickson BJ, Korfiatis P, Kline TL, Akkus Z, Philbrick K, Weston AD (2018) Deep learning in radiology: does one size fit all? J Am Coll Radiol 15:521–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Samek W, Wiegand T, Müller K-R (2017) Explainable artificial intelligence: understanding, visualizing and interpreting deep learning models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.08296

  14. Baehrens D, Schroeter T, Harmeling S, Kawanabe M, Hansen K, Müller K-R (2010) How to explain individual classification decisions. J Mach Learn Res 11:1803–1831

    Google Scholar 

  15. D’Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB et al (2013) ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Reston, VA, American College of Radiology

  16. Kim EK, Kim HE, Han K et al (2018) Applying data-driven imaging biomarker in mammography for breast cancer screening: preliminary study. Sci Rep 8:2762

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Salim M, Wåhlin E, Dembrower K et al (2020) External evaluation of 3 commercial artificial intelligence algorithms for independent assessment of screening mammograms. JAMA Oncol 6:1581–1588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Elias SG, Adams A, Wisner DJ et al (2014) Imaging features of HER2 overexpression in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers &amp. Prevention 23:1464–1483

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Nie Z, Wang J, Ji X-c (2018) Microcalcification-associated breast cancer: HER2-enriched molecular subtype is associated with mammographic features. Br J Radiol 20170942

  20. O'Grady S, Morgan MP (2018) Microcalcifications in breast cancer: from pathophysiology to diagnosis and prognosis. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)-Reviews on. Cancer 1869:310–320

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Mayo RC, Kent D, Sen LC, Kapoor M, Leung JW, Watanabe AT (2019) Reduction of false-positive markings on mammograms: a retrospective comparison study using an artificial intelligence-based CAD. J Digit Imaging 32:618–624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lee SE, Han K, Kim E-K (2021) Application of artificial intelligence–based computer-assisted diagnosis on synthetic mammograms from breast tomosynthesis: comparison with digital mammograms. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-07796-y

Download references

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Yongin Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 363, Dongbaekjukjeon-daero, Giheung-gu, Yongin, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea

    Si Eun Lee & Eun-Kyung Kim

  2. Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiological Science, Center for Clinical Imaging Data Science, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    Kyunghwa Han, Jung Hyun Yoon & Eun-Kyung Kim

  3. Department of Radiology, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    Jung Hyun Yoon

  4. Department of Radiology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    Ji Hyun Youk

Authors
  1. Si Eun Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kyunghwa Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jung Hyun Yoon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ji Hyun Youk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Eun-Kyung Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eun-Kyung Kim.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Eun-Kyung Kim, MD, PhD.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

One of the authors has significant statistical expertise.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethics approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Study subjects or cohorts overlap

Of 896 patients, 192 patients were included in a prior publication that compared diagnostic performance of synthetic and digital mammogram applied by AI-CAD [22]. Lee SE, Han K, Kim E-K (2021) Application of artificial intelligence–based computer-assisted diagnosis on synthetic mammograms from breast tomosynthesis: comparison with digital mammograms. European Radiology. DOI:10.1007/s00330-021-07796-y

Methodology

• retrospective

• cross-sectional study

• performed at one institution

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, S.E., Han, K., Yoon, J.H. et al. Depiction of breast cancers on digital mammograms by artificial intelligence-based computer-assisted diagnosis according to cancer characteristics. Eur Radiol 32, 7400–7408 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08718-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08718-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation