TY - JOUR
T1 - AI-CAD for differentiating lesions presenting as calcifications only on mammography
T2 - outcome analysis incorporating the ACR BI-RADS descriptors for calcifications
AU - Yoon, Jiyoung
AU - Lee, Hye Sun
AU - Kim, Min Jung
AU - Park, Vivian Youngjean
AU - Kim, Eun Kyung
AU - Yoon, Jung Hyun
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Radiology.
PY - 2022/10
Y1 - 2022/10
N2 - Objectives: To evaluate how AI-CAD triages calcifications and to compare its performance to an experienced breast radiologist. Methods: Among routine mammography performed between June 2016 and May 2018, 535 lesions detected as calcifications only on mammography in 500 women (mean age, 48.8 years) that were additionally interpreted with additional magnification views were included in this study. One dedicated breast radiologist retrospectively reviewed the magnification mammograms to assess morphology, distribution, and final assessment category according to ACR BI-RADS. AI-CAD analyzed routine mammograms providing AI-CAD marks and corresponding AI-CAD scores (ranging from 0 to 100%), for which values ≥ 10% were considered positive. Ground truth in terms of malignancy or benignity was confirmed with a histopathologic diagnosis or at least 1 year of imaging follow - up. Results: Of the 535 calcifications, 215 (40.2%) were malignant. Calcifications with positive AI-CAD scores showed significantly higher PPVs compared to calcifications with negative scores for all morphology (all p < 0.05). PPVs were significantly higher in calcifications with positive AI-CAD scores compared to those with negative scores for BI-RADS 3, 4a, or 4b assessments (all p < 0.05). AI-CAD and the experienced radiologist did not show significant difference in diagnostic performance; sensitivity 92.1% vs 95.4% (p = 0.125), specificity 71.9% vs 72.5% (p = 0.842), and accuracy 80.0% vs 81.7% (p = 0.413). Conclusion: Among calcifications with same morphology or BI-RADS assessment, those with positive AI-CAD scores had significantly higher PPVs. AI-CAD showed similar diagnostic performances to the experienced radiologist for calcifications detected on mammography. Key Points: • Among calcifications with same morphology or BI-RADS assessment, those with positive AI-CAD scores had significantly higher PPVs. • AI-CAD showed similar diagnostic performance to an experienced radiologist in assessing lesions detected as calcifications only on mammography. • Among malignant calcifications, calcifications with positive AI-CAD scores showed higher rates of invasive cancers than calcifications with negative scores (all p > 0.05).
AB - Objectives: To evaluate how AI-CAD triages calcifications and to compare its performance to an experienced breast radiologist. Methods: Among routine mammography performed between June 2016 and May 2018, 535 lesions detected as calcifications only on mammography in 500 women (mean age, 48.8 years) that were additionally interpreted with additional magnification views were included in this study. One dedicated breast radiologist retrospectively reviewed the magnification mammograms to assess morphology, distribution, and final assessment category according to ACR BI-RADS. AI-CAD analyzed routine mammograms providing AI-CAD marks and corresponding AI-CAD scores (ranging from 0 to 100%), for which values ≥ 10% were considered positive. Ground truth in terms of malignancy or benignity was confirmed with a histopathologic diagnosis or at least 1 year of imaging follow - up. Results: Of the 535 calcifications, 215 (40.2%) were malignant. Calcifications with positive AI-CAD scores showed significantly higher PPVs compared to calcifications with negative scores for all morphology (all p < 0.05). PPVs were significantly higher in calcifications with positive AI-CAD scores compared to those with negative scores for BI-RADS 3, 4a, or 4b assessments (all p < 0.05). AI-CAD and the experienced radiologist did not show significant difference in diagnostic performance; sensitivity 92.1% vs 95.4% (p = 0.125), specificity 71.9% vs 72.5% (p = 0.842), and accuracy 80.0% vs 81.7% (p = 0.413). Conclusion: Among calcifications with same morphology or BI-RADS assessment, those with positive AI-CAD scores had significantly higher PPVs. AI-CAD showed similar diagnostic performances to the experienced radiologist for calcifications detected on mammography. Key Points: • Among calcifications with same morphology or BI-RADS assessment, those with positive AI-CAD scores had significantly higher PPVs. • AI-CAD showed similar diagnostic performance to an experienced radiologist in assessing lesions detected as calcifications only on mammography. • Among malignant calcifications, calcifications with positive AI-CAD scores showed higher rates of invasive cancers than calcifications with negative scores (all p > 0.05).
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85132696403&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85132696403&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00330-022-08961-7
DO - 10.1007/s00330-022-08961-7
M3 - Article
C2 - 35748900
AN - SCOPUS:85132696403
SN - 0938-7994
JO - European Radiology
JF - European Radiology
ER -