Can Artificial Intelligence Beat Humans in Detecting Breast Malignancy on Mammograms?

The study was aimed at identifying how useful Computer-Aided Detection (CAD) could be in reducing false-negative reporting in mammography and early detection of breast cancer at an early stage as the best protection is early detection.

This retrospective study was conducted in a tertiary care setup of Atomic Energy Cancer Hospital, Nuclear Medicine, Oncology and Radiotherapy Institute (AECH-NORI), where 33 patients with suspicious findings on mammography and subsequent biopsy-proven malignancy were included. The findings of mammography including the lesion type, breast parenchymal density, and sensitivity of CAD detection, as well as the final biopsy results, were recorded. A second group of 40 normal screening mammograms was also included who had no symptoms, had Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System category I(BI-RADS I) mammograms, and had no pathology identified on correlative sonomammography as well.

A total of 35 masses, 11 pleomorphic clusters of microcalcification, five clustered foci of macrocalcification, and nine lesions with pleomorphic clusters of microcalcification and two with pleomorphic clusters of microcalcification only were included. The CAD system was able to identify 26 masses (74%), eight lesions with pleomorphic clusters of microcalcification (72%), five foci of macrocalcification (100%), six lesions with pleomorphic clusters of microcalcification (66%), and two pleomorphic clusters of microcalcification without formed mass (100%). The overall sensitivity of the CAD system was 75.8%. CAD was able to identify 13 out of 16 masses with invasive ductal carcinoma (81.3%), eight out of nine lesions proven as invasive ductal carcinoma with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (88.9%), two out of five masses with invasive lobular carcinoma (40%), four out of four masses with invasive mammary carcinoma (100%), and zero out of one lesion identified as medullary carcinoma (0%). There was 100% detection for pleomorphic clusters of microcalcification without formed mass with CAD marking two out of two mammograms.

CAD performed better with combined lesions, accurately marked pleomorphic clusters of microcalcification, and identified small lesions in predominant fibrofatty parenchymal density but was not reliable in dense breast, areas of asymmetric increased density, summation artifacts, edematous breast parenchyma, and retroareolar lesions. It also performed poorly with ill-defined lesions of invasive lobular carcinoma. Human intelligence hence beats CAD for the diagnosis of breast malignancy in mammograms as per our experience.