Department of Radiology, Yongin Severance Hospital, Research Institute of Radiological Science, Center for Clinical Imaging Data Science, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 363, Dongbaekjukjeon-daero, Giheung-gu, Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea.
Department of Radiology, Severance Hospital, Research Institute of Radiological Science, Center for Clinical Imaging Data Science, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Eur Radiol. 2021 Sep;31(9):6929-6937. doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-07796-y. Epub 2021 Mar 12.
To compare the diagnostic agreement and performances of synthetic and conventional mammograms when artificial intelligence-based computer-assisted diagnosis (AI-CAD) is applied.
From January 2017 to April 2017, 192 patients (mean age 53.7 ± 11.7 years) diagnosed with 203 breast cancers were enrolled in this retrospective study. All patients underwent digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with digital mammograms (DM) simultaneously. Commercial AI-CAD was applied to the reconstructed synthetic mammograms (SM) from DBT and DM respectively and abnormality scores were calculated. We compared the median abnormality scores between DM and SM with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and used the Bland-Altman analysis to evaluate agreements between the two mammograms and to investigate clinicopathological factors which might affect agreement. Diagnostic performances were compared using an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).
The abnormality scores showed a mean difference (bias) of - 3.26 (95% limits of agreement: - 32.69, 26.18) between the two mammograms by the Bland-Altman analysis. The concordance correlation coefficient was 0.934 (95% CI: 0.92, 0.946), suggesting high reproducibility. SM showed higher abnormality scores in cancer with distortion and occult findings, T1 and N0 cancer, and luminal type cancer than DM (all p ≤ 0.001). Diagnostic performance did not differ between the mammograms (AUC 0.945 for conventional mammograms, 0.938 for synthetic mammograms, p = 0.499).
AI-CAD can also work well on synthetic mammograms, showing good agreement and comparable diagnostic performance compared to its application to DM.
• AI-CAD which was developed based on imaging findings of digital mammograms can also be applied to synthetic mammograms. • AI-CAD showed good agreement and similar diagnostic performance when applied to both synthetic and digital mammograms. • With AI-CAD, synthetic mammograms showed relatively higher abnormality scores in cancer with distortion and occult findings, T1 and N0 cancer, and luminal type cancer than digital mammograms.
比较人工智能辅助诊断(AI-CAD)应用时合成与常规数字化乳腺 X 线摄影(DM)的诊断一致性和效能。
本回顾性研究纳入了 2017 年 1 月至 4 月间经数字乳腺断层摄影术(DBT)与 DM 同时检查、诊断为 203 例乳腺癌的 192 例患者(平均年龄 53.7 ± 11.7 岁)。分别将 AI-CAD 应用于 DBT 与 DM 的重建合成乳腺 X 线摄影(SM),计算异常评分。采用 Wilcoxon 符号秩检验比较 DM 与 SM 的中位数异常评分,采用 Bland-Altman 分析评估两种乳腺 X 线摄影的一致性,并分析可能影响一致性的临床病理因素。采用受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUC)比较诊断效能。
Bland-Altman 分析显示两种乳腺 X 线摄影的异常评分存在 3.26 分(95%可信区间:-32.69,26.18)的平均差异(偏倚)。一致性相关系数为 0.934(95%可信区间:0.92,0.946),提示具有高度可重复性。SM 对存在结构扭曲、隐匿性发现、T1 期和 N0 期肿瘤、管腔型肿瘤的乳腺癌的异常评分高于 DM(均 P ≤ 0.001)。两种乳腺 X 线摄影的诊断效能无差异(常规乳腺 X 线摄影 AUC 为 0.945,合成乳腺 X 线摄影 AUC 为 0.938,P = 0.499)。
AI-CAD 也可在 SM 上发挥作用,与应用于 DM 时相比,SM 显示出良好的一致性和相当的诊断效能。
• 基于 DM 影像学特征开发的 AI-CAD 也可应用于 SM。• AI-CAD 应用于 SM 和 DM 时具有良好的一致性和相似的诊断效能。• 应用 AI-CAD 时,SM 对存在结构扭曲、隐匿性发现、T1 期和 N0 期肿瘤、管腔型肿瘤的乳腺癌的异常评分相对高于 DM。