Faculty Bibliography

Background There is considerable interest in the potential use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in mammographic screening. However, it is essential to critically evaluate the performance of AI before it can become a modality used for independent mammographic interpretation. Purpose To evaluate the reported standalone performances of AI for interpretation of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Materials and Methods A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase (Ovid), and Web of Science databases for studies published from January 2017 to June 2022. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values were reviewed. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 and Comparative (QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C, respectively). A random effects meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis were performed for overall studies and for different study types (reader studies vs historic cohort studies) and imaging techniques (digital mammography vs DBT). Results In total, 16 studies that include 1 108 328 examinations in 497 091 women were analyzed (six reader studies, seven historic cohort studies on digital mammography, and four studies on DBT). Pooled AUCs were significantly higher for standalone AI than radiologists in the six reader studies on digital mammography (0.87 vs 0.81, P = .002), but not for historic cohort studies (0.89 vs 0.96, P = .152). Four studies on DBT showed significantly higher AUCs in AI compared with radiologists (0.90 vs 0.79, P < .001). Higher sensitivity and lower specificity were seen for standalone AI compared with radiologists. Conclusion Standalone AI for screening digital mammography performed as well as or better than radiologists. Compared with digital mammography, there is an insufficient number of studies to assess the performance of AI systems in the interpretation of DBT screening examinations. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Scaranelo in this issue.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women, with the incidence rising substantially with age. Older women are a vulnerable population at increased risk of developing and dying from breast cancer. However, women aged 75 years and older were excluded from all randomized controlled screening trials, so the best available data regarding screening benefits and risks in this age group are from observational studies and modeling predictions. Benefits of screening in older women are the same as those in younger women: early detection of smaller lower-stage cancers, resulting in less invasive treatment and lower morbidity and mortality. Mammography performs significantly better in older women with higher sensitivity, specificity, cancer detection rate, and positive predictive values, accompanied by lower recall rates and false positives. The overdiagnosis rate is low, with benefits outweighing risks until age 90 years. Although there are conflicting national and international guidelines about whether to continue screening mammography in women beyond age 74 years, clinicians can use shared decision making to help women make decisions about screening and fully engage them in the screening process. For women aged 75 years and older in good health, continuing annual screening mammography will save the most lives. An informed discussion of the benefits and risks of screening mammography in older women needs to include each woman's individual values, overall health status, and comorbidities. This article will review the benefits, risks, and controversies surrounding screening mammography in women 75 years old and older and compare the current recommendations for screening this population from national and international professional organizations. ^©RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available through the Online Learning Center.

Breast density is an independent risk factor for breast cancer. In digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis, breast density is assessed visually using the four-category scale developed by the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (5th edition as of November 2022). Epidemiologically based risk models, such as the Tyrer-Cuzick model (version 8), demonstrate superior modeling performance when mammographic density is incorporated. Beyond just density, a separate mammographic measure of breast cancer risk is parenchymal textural complexity. With advancements in radiomics and deep learning, mammographic textural patterns can be assessed quantitatively and incorporated into risk models. Other supplemental screening modalities, such as breast US and MRI, offer independent risk measures complementary to those derived from mammography. Breast US allows the two components of fibroglandular tissue (stromal and glandular) to be visualized separately in a manner that is not possible with mammography. A higher glandular component at screening breast US is associated with higher risk. With MRI, a higher background parenchymal enhancement of the fibroglandular tissue has also emerged as an imaging marker for risk assessment. Imaging markers observed at mammography, US, and MRI are powerful tools in refining breast cancer risk prediction, beyond mammographic density alone.

Implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) applications into clinical practice requires AI-savvy radiologists to ensure the safe, ethical, and effective use of these systems for patient care. Increasing demand for AI education reflects recognition of the translation of AI applications from research to clinical practice, with positive trainee attitudes regarding the influence of AI on radiology. However, barriers to AI education, such as limited access to resources, predispose to insufficient preparation for the effective use of AI in practice. In response, national organizations have sponsored formal and self-directed learning courses to provide introductory content on imaging informatics and AI. Foundational courses, such as the National Imaging Informatics Course "“ Radiology and the Radiological Society of North America Imaging AI Certificate, lay a framework for trainees to explore the creation, deployment, and critical evaluation of AI applications. This report includes additional resources for formal programming courses, video series from leading organizations, and blogs from AI and informatics communities. Furthermore, the scope of "AI and radiology education" includes AI-augmented radiology education, with emphasis on the potential for "precision education" that cre-ates personalized experiences for trainees by accounting for varying learning styles and inconsistent, possibly deficient, clinical case volume.

The use of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in breast cancer screening has become widely accepted, facilitating increased cancer detection and lower recall rates compared with those achieved by using full-field digital mammography (DM). However, the use of DBT, as compared with DM, raises new challenges, including a larger number of acquired images and thus longer interpretation times. While most current artificial intelligence (AI) applications are developed for DM, there are multiple potential opportunities for AI to augment the benefits of DBT. During the diagnostic steps of lesion detection, characterization, and classification, AI algorithms may not only assist in the detection of indeterminate or suspicious findings but also aid in predicting the likelihood of malignancy for a particular lesion. During image acquisition and processing, AI algorithms may help reduce radiation dose and improve lesion conspicuity on synthetic two-dimensional DM images. The use of AI algorithms may also improve workflow efficiency and decrease the radiologist's interpretation time. There has been significant growth in research that applies AI to DBT, with several algorithms approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for clinical implementation. Further development of AI models for DBT has the potential to lead to improved practice efficiency and ultimately improved patient health outcomes of breast cancer screening and diagnostic evaluation. See the invited commentary by Bahl in this issue. ^©RSNA, 2022.