Breast Cancer
Conditions
Keywords
Breast Cancer Screening, Digital Mammography, Artificial Intelligence, Randomized Controlled Trial
Brief summary
The purpose of this randomized controlled trial is to compare the number of breast cancers detected among women who had their screening mammograms interpreted by artificial intelligence (AI) in combination with one or two breast radiologists to the number of breast cancers detected after standard independent double reading in BreastScreen Norway. The aims of the study is to prove that screening interpretation with AI in combination with one or two radiologists (the intervention) is non-inferior to standard interpretation procedure.
Detailed description
Independent double reading with consensus is the recommended practice for breast cancer screening programs in Europe. This is a time-consuming process and more than 99% of examinations are determined to have a negative final outcome in BreastScreen Norway. However, radiologist still overlook cancers, and review-studies have shown 20-25% of screen-detected and interval cancers to be visible at prior screening mammograms. In Norway and other countries, there is also a shortage of breast radiologists. Retrospective studies on AI in mammographic screening have shown promising results in the classification of cancer negative and cancer positive examinations. However, prospective studies are needed to elucidate questions concerning AI as a support or replacement for the radiologists in the interpretation process. In this randomized controlled trial women attending screening and consenting to participate in the study, will be randomized (1:1 allocation) to an intervention or a control group. The screening examination will be performed as usual in both groups. The intervention in the trial is the interpretation procedure. All examinations will be analyzed by AI. In the intervention group, examinations will be triaged according to risk of malignancy defined by an AI score. Examinations with a low AI score (1-7) will have a single reading by one radiologist and examinations with a intermediate or high AI score (8-10) will have an independent double reading by two radiologists. All examinations selected by either one or both radiologist will be discussed at consensus. Examinations with an AI raw score of \>9.8 will be discussed at consensus independent of the radiologists' interpretation. The radiologists will be blinded to whether the mammograms are interpreted by one or two radiologists. AI risk scores and AI image marking of suspicious calcifications and masses are only provided to the radiologists at consensus, not during independent reading. In the control group, two independent radiologists will interpret all screening examinations according to standard procedure, independent double reading. AI results will not be available at either independent reading or consensus, only for comparison with the intervention group in final analyses. Screen-detected cancers in the intervention and control arm will be analyzed in terms of non-inferiority.
Interventions
OTHERAI assisted mammography screening interpretation
Screening examinations will be analyzed by the AI system (Transpara, ScreenPoint Medical, Nijmegen, The Netherlands) that assigns each examination a cancer risk score 1-10. Examinations with a score 1-7 will be single read and examinations with score 8-10 will be double read. Examinations selected by one or two readers will be discussed in a consensus meeting. Examinations with an AI score of \>9.8 will be selected for the consensus meeting by default. AI risk scores and image markings are provided to the readers only in the consensus meetings. The readers will decide whether to recall the woman for further assessment in consensus (standard procedure).
OTHERStandard mammography screening interpretation
Screening examinations will be assessed according to standard of care: independently double read, examinations selected by one or two readers will be discussed in a consensus meeting, and the radiologists will decide whether to recall the woman for further assessment. Screening examinations will be analyzed by the AI system retrospectively but the results will not be made available to the radiologist, only used for comparison to the intervention group in results analyses.
Sponsors
Helse Vest
Helse Midt-Norge
Helse Nord
Norwegian Cancer Society
Norwegian Institute of Public Health
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
SCREENING
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Caregiver)
Masking description
Neither the participant nor the radiologic technician performing the mammography examination will know to what study arm the participant was allocated. Radiologists reading the screening examinations will be blinded to the intervention at initial reading but not in the consensus meeting.
Intervention model description
Participants will be randomized to an intervention or control arm. Intervention arm will be triaged based on AI result score.
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
FEMALE
Age
50 Years to 69 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Women attending the population-based mammography screening program BreastScreen Norway providing a signed, informed consent
Exclusion criteria
* Women attending the population-based mammography screening program BreastScreen Norway not providing a signed, informed consent
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Screen-detected breast cancers | 36 months from study start-up | Number of breast cancers detected at screening per 1000 screening examinations. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Recall rate | 24 months from study start-up | Proportion of women recalled for further assessment among all participants (%). |
| Interval breast cancers | 60 months from study start-up | Number of interval breast cancers diagnosed per 1000 screening examinations. |
| Prognostic and predictive tumor characteristics of screen-detected breast cancer | 36 months from study start-up | Distribution of tumor characteristics among the participants with screen-detected breast cancer. |
| Prognostic and predictive tumor characteristics of interval breast cancer | 60 months from study start-up | Distribution of tumor characteristics among the participants with interval breast cancer. |
| Consensus rate | 24 months from study start-up | Proportion of participant discussed in consensus among all participants (%). |
| Specificity | 60 months from study start-up | Proportion of true negatives among true negatives and false positives (%). |
| Mammographic features of screen-detected breast cancer | 36 months from study start-up | Distribution of characteristics of tumors observed on the mammograms of participants diagnosed with screen-detected breast cancer. |
| Time spent screen-reading | 36 months from study start-up | Time (minutes:seconds) spent by the individual radiologists interpreting screening mammograms |
| Sensitivity | 60 months from study start-up | Proportion of true positives among true positive and false negatives (%). |
Countries
Norway
Contacts
Primary ContactSolveig Hofvind, PhD
Backup ContactÅsne S Holen, MSc
Outcome results
None listed