Abstract
Screening mammography with two human readers increases cancer detection and lowers recall rates, but high resource requirements and a shortage of qualified readers make double reading unsustainable in many countries. The use of AI as an independent reader may yield more objective, accurate and outcome-based screening. Clinical validation of AI requires large-scale, multi-site, multi-vendor studies on unenriched cohorts.
This retrospective study evaluated the performance of the Mia™ version 2.0.1 AI system from Kheiron Medical Technologies on an unenriched sample (275,900 cases from 177,882 participants) collected across seven screening sites in two countries and four hardware vendors, and is representative of a real-world screening population over 10 years. Performance was determined for standalone AI and simulated double reading to assess non-inferiority and superiority on relevant screening metrics.
Standalone AI showed superiority on sensitivity and non-inferiority on specificity while detecting 29.7% of cancers found within three years after screening, and 29.8% of missed interval cancers. Double reading with AI was at least non-inferior compared to human double reading at every metric, with superiority for recall rate, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV). AI as an independent reader reduced the workload, but increased arbitration rate from 3.3% to 12.3%. Applying the AI system under investigation would have reduced the overall number of human reads required by 44.8%. The recall rate was reduced by a relative 4.1%, suggesting there could be fewer follow-up procedures, reduced stress for patients, and less administrative and clinical work.
Using the AI system as an independent reader maintains the standard of care of double reading, detects cancers missed by human readers, while automating a substantial part of the workflow, and could therefore bring significant clinical and operational benefits.
Competing Interest Statement
All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form. Funding for the UK arm of the study was received from Innovate UK via an NHS England and Improvement, Office of Life Sciences (OLS) Wave 2 Test Bed Programme and a Medical Research Council (MRC) Biomedical Catalyst award. Authors affiliated with Kheiron Medical Technologies are paid employees. There are no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years and there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Funding Statement
The study was funded by Kheiron Medical Technologies. The following authors are employees of the company: Annie Y Ng, Galvin Khara, Christopher C Austin, Andreas Heindl, Edit Karpati, Tobias M Rijken, Vignesh Venkataraman, Joseph E Yearsley, Peter D Kecskemethy. All other authors received no payment for this work. The UK arm of the study was supported by funding from Innovate UK via an NHS England and Improvement, Office of Life Sciences (OLS) Wave 2 Test Bed Programme and a Medical Research Council (MRC) Biomedical Catalyst award.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study had UK National Health Service Health Research Authority (REC reference 19/HRA/0376) and ETT-TUKEB Medical Research Council, Scientific and Research Ethics Committee, Hungary approval (reg no OGYEI/46651-4/2020).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The data for the current study are not publicly available. Due to reasonable privacy and ethical concerns, the imaging data cannot be distributed to researchers without ethical approval and research agreements with the original data providers.