Artificial intelligence computer-aided detection enhances synthesized mammograms: comparison with original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images in an experimental setting

• Published in: Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) Vol. 30; no. 1; pp. 46 - 55
• Main Authors: Uematsu, Takayoshi, Nakashima, Kazuaki, Harada, Taiyo Leopoldo, Nasu, Hatsuko, Igarashi, Tatsuya
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Singapore Springer Nature Singapore 01.01.2023; Springer
• Subjects: Artificial Intelligence; Breast - diagnostic imaging; Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging; Cancer Research; Comparative analysis; Computers; Female; Humans; Mammography; Mammography - methods; Medical imaging equipment; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Oncology; Original; Original Article; Retrospective Studies; Surgery; Surgical Oncology; Digital breast tomosynthesis; Synthesized mammography; Digital mammography; Breast cancer; Artificial intelligence
• ISSN: 1340-6868; 1880-4233
• DOI: 10.1007/s12282-022-01396-4

Background It remains unclear whether original full-field digital mammograms (DMs) can be replaced with synthesized mammograms in both screening and diagnostic settings. To compare reader performance of artificial intelligence computer-aided detection synthesized mammograms (AI CAD SMs) with that of DM alone or in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) images in an experimental setting. Methods We compared the performance of multireader ( n  = 4) and reading multicase ( n  = 388), in 84 cancers, 83 biopsy-proven benign lesions, and 221 normal or benign cases with negative results after 1-year follow-up. Each reading was independently interpreted with four reading modes: DM, AI CAD SM, DM + DBT, and AI CAD SM + DBT. The accuracy of probability of malignancy (POM) and five-category ratings were evaluated using areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) in the random-reader analysis. Results The mean AUC values based on POM for DM, AI CAD SM, DM + DBT, and AI CAD SM + DBT were 0.871, 0.902, 0.895, and 0.909, respectively. The mean AUC of AI CAD SM was significantly higher ( P  = 0.002) than that of DM. For calcification lesions, the sensitivity of SM and DM did not differ significantly ( P  = 0.204). The mean AUC for AI CAD SM + DBT was higher than that of DM + DBT ( P  = 0.082). ROC curves based on the five-category ratings showed similar proximity of the overall performance levels. Conclusions AI CAD SM alone was superior to DM alone. Also, AI CAD SM + DBT was superior to DM + DBT but not statistically significant.