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
. 2024 Oct 1;7(10):e2437402.
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.37402.

Artificial Intelligence Algorithm for Subclinical Breast Cancer Detection

Affiliations

Artificial Intelligence Algorithm for Subclinical Breast Cancer Detection

Jonas Gjesvik et al. JAMA Netw Open. .

Abstract

Importance: Early breast cancer detection is associated with lower morbidity and mortality.

Objective: To examine whether a commercial artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm for breast cancer detection could estimate the development of future cancer.

Design, setting, and participants: This retrospective cohort study of 116 495 women aged 50 to 69 years with no prior history of breast cancer before they underwent at least 3 consecutive biennial screening examinations used scores from an AI algorithm (INSIGHT MMG, version 1.1.7.2; Lunit Inc; used September 28, 2022, to April 5, 2023) for breast cancer detection and screening data from multiple, consecutive rounds of mammography performed from September 13, 2004, to December 21, 2018, at 9 breast centers in Norway. The statistical analyses were performed from September 2023 to August 2024.

Exposure: Artificial intelligence algorithm score indicating suspicion for the presence of breast cancer. The algorithm provided a continuous cancer detection score for each examination ranging from 0 to 100, with increasing values indicating a higher likelihood of cancer being present on the current mammogram.

Main outcomes and measures: Maximum AI algorithm score for cancer detection and absolute difference in score among breasts of women developing screening-detected cancer, women with interval cancer, and women who screened negative.

Results: The mean (SD) age at the first study round was 58.5 (4.5) years for 1265 women with screening-detected cancer in the third round, 57.4 (4.6) years for 342 women with interval cancer after 3 negative screening rounds, and 56.4 (4.9) years for 116 495 women without breast cancer all 3 screening rounds. The mean (SD) absolute differences in AI scores among breasts of women developing screening-detected cancer were 21.3 (28.1) at the first study round, 30.7 (32.5) at the second study round, and 79.0 (28.9) at the third study round. The mean (SD) differences prior to interval cancer were 19.7 (27.0) at the first study round, 21.0 (27.7) at the second study round, and 34.0 (33.6) at the third study round. The mean (SD) differences among women who did not develop breast cancer were 9.9 (17.5) at the first study round, 9.6 (17.4) at the second study round, and 9.3 (17.3) at the third study round. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the absolute difference were 0.63 (95% CI, 0.61-0.65) at the first study round, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.71-0.74) at the second study round, and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.95-0.96) at the third study round for screening-detected cancer and 0.64 (95% CI, 0.61-0.67) at the first study round, 0.65 (95% CI, 0.62-0.68) at the second study round, and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.74-0.79) at the third study round for interval cancers.

Conclusions and relevance: In this retrospective cohort study of women undergoing screening mammography, mean absolute AI scores were higher for breasts developing vs not developing cancer 4 to 6 years before their eventual detection. These findings suggest that commercial AI algorithms developed for breast cancer detection may identify women at high risk of a future breast cancer, offering a pathway for personalized screening approaches that can lead to earlier cancer diagnosis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Lee reported receiving personal fees from American College of Radiology and DeepHealth/RadNet and textbook royalties from McGraw Hill Inc, Oxford University Press, and UpToDate Inc outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Study Sample With Exclusions
AI indicates artificial intelligence. aAgder, Hedmark, Oppland, Møre og Romsdal, Nordland, Troms and Finmark, Trøndelag, Vestre Viken, and Østfold. bMissing AI information for 1 or more views. cNo breast cancer diagnosed before the third study round.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Mean Artificial Intelligence (AI) Scores and the Absolute Difference in AI Scores Between the Breasts for Each Study Round
A, Mean AI scores for breasts not developing (negative) and developing screening-detected cancer and/or interval cancer and the mean of both breasts among women negatively screened in first, second, and third study screening rounds. B, Absolute difference in AI scores between the breasts for each study round.

References

    1. Lauby-Secretan B, Scoccianti C, Loomis D, et al. ; International Agency for Research on Cancer Handbook Working Group . Breast-cancer screening—viewpoint of the IARC Working Group. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(24):2353-2358. doi:10.1056/NEJMsr1504363 - DOI - PubMed
    1. European Commission . European Commision Initiative on Breast Cancer. Accessed August 21, 2024. https://cancer-screening-and-care.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en/ecibc
    1. Dibden A, Offman J, Duffy SW, Gabe R. Worldwide review and meta-analysis of cohort studies measuring the effect of mammography screening programmes on incidence-based breast cancer mortality. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12(4):976. doi:10.3390/cancers12040976 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Posso M, Carles M, Rué M, Puig T, Bonfill X. Cost-effectiveness of double reading versus single reading of mammograms in a breast cancer screening programme. PLoS One. 2016;11(7):e0159806. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0159806 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lång K, Josefsson V, Larsson AM, et al. . Artificial intelligence–supported screen reading versus standard double reading in the Mammography Screening with Artificial Intelligence trial (MASAI): a clinical safety analysis of a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority, single-blinded, screening accuracy study. Lancet Oncol. 2023;24(8):936-944. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00298-X - DOI - PubMed

Publication types