Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2024 Sep;30(9):2623-2630.
doi: 10.1038/s41591-024-03093-5. Epub 2024 Jul 8.

AI-based selection of individuals for supplemental MRI in population-based breast cancer screening: the randomized ScreenTrustMRI trial

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

AI-based selection of individuals for supplemental MRI in population-based breast cancer screening: the randomized ScreenTrustMRI trial

Mattie Salim et al. Nat Med. 2024 Sep.

Abstract

Screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality, but studies analyzing interval cancers diagnosed after negative screens have shown that many cancers are missed. Supplemental screening using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can reduce the number of missed cancers. However, as qualified MRI staff are lacking, the equipment is expensive to purchase and cost-effectiveness for screening may not be convincing, the utilization of MRI is currently limited. An effective method for triaging individuals to supplemental MRI screening is therefore needed. We conducted a randomized clinical trial, ScreenTrustMRI, using a recently developed artificial intelligence (AI) tool to score each mammogram. We offered trial participation to individuals with a negative screening mammogram and a high AI score (top 6.9%). Upon agreeing to participate, individuals were assigned randomly to one of two groups: those receiving supplemental MRI and those not receiving MRI. The primary endpoint of ScreenTrustMRI is advanced breast cancer defined as either interval cancer, invasive component larger than 15 mm or lymph node positive cancer, based on a 27-month follow-up time from the initial screening. Secondary endpoints, prespecified in the study protocol to be reported before the primary outcome, include cancer detected by supplemental MRI, which is the focus of the current paper. Compared with traditional breast density measures used in a previous clinical trial, the current AI method was nearly four times more efficient in terms of cancers detected per 1,000 MRI examinations (64 versus 16.5). Most additional cancers detected were invasive and several were multifocal, suggesting that their detection was timely. Altogether, our results show that using an AI-based score to select a small proportion (6.9%) of individuals for supplemental MRI after negative mammography detects many missed cancers, making the cost per cancer detected comparable with screening mammography. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT04832594 .

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

F.S. has received speaker fees from Lunit and from Pfizer. F.S. and K.S. are shareholders of ClearScanAI AB. The remaining authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1. Study population.
CONSORT diagram for the study population.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2. Cancers detected by supplemental MRI after negative mammography.
a, Case A was a 13-mm large BI-RADS 4 finding on MRI that corresponded to a 13-mm large invasive cancer as diagnosed in the surgical specimen. b, Case B was a 9-mm large BI-RADS 4 finding on MRI that corresponded to an 8-mm invasive cancer and 14-mm ductal cancer in situ. c, Case C was three suspicious lesions within a total area of 60 mm, BI-RADS 5 finding on MRI, that corresponded to a 50-mm multifocal invasive lobular cancer. d, Case D was two suspicious lesions, the largest 13 mm, BI-RADS 3 on MRI, which corresponded to a 10-mm invasive lobular cancer with 85-mm extent including ductal cancer in situ.

References

    1. Marmot, M. et al. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Br. J. Cancer108, 2205–2240 (2013). 10.1038/bjc.2013.177 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Duffy, S. W. et al. Beneficial effect of consecutive screening mammography examinations on mortality from breast cancer: a prospective study. Radiology299, 541–547 (2021). 10.1148/radiol.2021203935 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tornberg, S. et al. A pooled analysis of interval cancer rates in six European countries. Eur. J. Cancer Prev.19, 87–93 (2010). 10.1097/CEJ.0b013e32833548ed - DOI - PubMed
    1. Crosier, M. et al. Differences in Ki67 and c-erbB2 expression between screen-detected and true interval breast cancers. Clin. Cancer Res.5, 2682–2688 (1999). - PubMed
    1. Domingo, L. et al. Tumor phenotype and breast density in distinct categories of interval cancer: results of population-based mammography screening in Spain. Breast Cancer Res.16, 11 (2014).10.1186/bcr3595 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data