Artificial intelligence for breast cancer detection and its health technology assessment: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND

Recent healthcare advancements highlight the potential of Artificial Intelligence (AI) - and especially, among its subfields, Machine Learning (ML) - in enhancing Breast Cancer (BC) clinical care, leading to improved patient outcomes and increased radiologists' efficiency. While medical imaging techniques have significantly contributed to BC detection and diagnosis, their synergy with AI algorithms has consistently demonstrated superior diagnostic accuracy, reduced False Positives (FPs), and enabled personalized treatment strategies. Despite the burgeoning enthusiasm for leveraging AI for early and effective BC clinical care, its widespread integration into clinical practice is yet to be realized, and the evaluation of AI-based health technologies in terms of health and economic outcomes remains an ongoing endeavor.

OBJECTIVES

This scoping review aims to investigate AI (and especially ML) applications that have been implemented and evaluated across diverse clinical tasks or decisions in breast imaging and to explore the current state of evidence concerning the assessment of AI-based technologies for BC clinical care within the context of Health Technology Assessment (HTA).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) checklist in PubMed and Scopus to identify relevant studies on AI (and particularly ML) applications in BC detection and diagnosis. We limited our search to studies published from January 2015 to October 2023. The Minimum Information about CLinical Artificial Intelligence Modeling (MI-CLAIM) checklist was used to assess the quality of AI algorithms development, evaluation, and reporting quality in the reviewed articles. The HTA Core Model® was also used to analyze the comprehensiveness, robustness, and reliability of the reported results and evidence in AI-systems' evaluations to ensure rigorous assessment of AI systems' utility and cost-effectiveness in clinical practice.

RESULTS

Of the 1652 initially identified articles, 104 were deemed eligible for inclusion in the review. Most studies examined the clinical effectiveness of AI-based systems (78.84%, n= 82), with one study focusing on safety in clinical settings, and 13.46% (n=14) focusing on patients' benefits. Of the studies, 31.73% (n=33) were ethically approved to be carried out in clinical practice, whereas 25% (n=26) evaluated AI systems legally approved for clinical use. Notably, none of the studies addressed the organizational implications of AI systems in clinical practice. Of the 104 studies, only two of them focused on cost-effectiveness analysis, and were analyzed separately. The average percentage scores for the first 102 AI-based studies' quality assessment based on the MI-CLAIM checklist criteria were 84.12%, 83.92%, 83.98%, 74.51%, and 14.7% for study design, data and optimization, model performance, model examination, and reproducibility, respectively. Notably, 20.59% (n=21) of these studies relied on large-scale representative real-world breast screening datasets, with only 10.78% (n =11) studies demonstrating the robustness and generalizability of the evaluated AI systems.

CONCLUSION

In bridging the gap between cutting-edge developments and seamless integration of AI systems into clinical workflows, persistent challenges encompass data quality and availability, ethical and legal considerations, robustness and trustworthiness, scalability, and alignment with existing radiologists' workflow. These hurdles impede the synthesis of comprehensive, robust, and reliable evidence to substantiate these systems' clinical utility, relevance, and cost-effectiveness in real-world clinical workflows. Consequently, evaluating AI-based health technologies through established HTA methodologies becomes complicated. We also highlight potential significant influences on AI systems' effectiveness of various factors, such as operational dynamics, organizational structure, the application context of AI systems, and practices in breast screening or examination reading of AI support tools in radiology. Furthermore, we emphasize substantial reciprocal influences on decision-making processes between AI systems and radiologists. Thus, we advocate for an adapted assessment framework specifically designed to address these potential influences on AI systems' effectiveness, mainly addressing system-level transformative implications for AI systems rather than focusing solely on technical performance and task-level evaluations.