How do AI markings on screening mammograms correspond to cancer location? An informed review of 270 breast cancer cases in BreastScreen Norway

Authors:
raw_author_name: Henrik Wethe Koch
raw_affiliation_string: Department of Radiology, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway
raw_author_name: Marthe Larsen
raw_affiliation_string: Section for Breast Cancer Screening, Cancer Registry of Norway, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, P.O. Box 5313, 0304, Oslo, Norway
raw_author_name: Hauke Bartsch
raw_affiliation_string: Mohn Medical Imaging and Visualization Centre (MMIV), Department of Radiology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
raw_author_name: Marit Almenning Martiniussen
raw_affiliation_string: Department of Radiology, Østfold Hospital Trust, Kalnes, Norway
raw_author_name: Solveig Hofvind
raw_affiliation_string: Section for Breast Cancer Screening, Cancer Registry of Norway, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, P.O. Box 5313, 0304, Oslo, Norway

Abstract: To compare the location of AI markings on screening mammograms with cancer location on diagnostic mammograms, and to classify interval cancers with high AI score as false negative, minimal sign, or true negative.In a retrospective study from 2022, we compared the performance of an AI system with independent double reading according to cancer detection. We found 93% (880/949) of the screen-detected cancers, and 40% (122/305) of the interval cancers to have the highest AI risk score (AI score of 10). In this study, four breast radiologists reviewed mammograms from 126 randomly selected screen-detected cancers and all 120 interval cancers with an AI score of 10. The location of the AI marking was stated as correct/not correct in craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique view. Interval cancers with an AI score of 10 were classified as false negative, minimal sign significant/non-specific, or true negative.All screen-detected cancers and 78% (93/120) of the interval cancers with an AI score of 10 were correctly located by the AI system. The AI markings matched in both views for 79% (100/126) of the screen-detected cancers and 22% (26/120) of the interval cancers. For interval cancers with an AI score of 10, 11% (13/120) were correctly located and classified as false negative, 10% (12/120) as minimal sign significant, 26% (31/120) as minimal sign non-specific, and 31% (37/120) as true negative.AI markings corresponded to cancer location for all screen-detected cancers and 78% of the interval cancers with high AI score, indicating a potential for reducing the number of interval cancers. However, it is uncertain whether interval cancers with subtle findings in only one view are actionable for recall in a true screening setting.In this study, AI markings corresponded to the location of the cancer in a high percentage of cases, indicating that the AI system accurately identifies the cancer location in mammograms with a high AI score.• All screen-detected and 78% of the interval cancers with high AI risk score (AI score of 10) had AI markings in one or two views corresponding to the location of the cancer on diagnostic images. • Among all 120 interval cancers with an AI score of 10, 21% (25/120) were classified as a false negative or minimal sign significant and had AI markings matching the cancer location, suggesting they may be visible on prior screening. • Most of the correctly located interval cancers matched only in one view, and the majority were classified as either true negative or minimal sign non-specific, indicating low potential for being detected earlier in a real screening setting.