Search

As artificial intelligence (AI) is finding its place in radiology, it is important to consider how to guide the research and clinical implementation in a way that will be most beneficial to patients. Although there are multiple aspects of this issue, I consider a specific one: a potential misalignment of the self-interests of radiologists and AI developers with the best interests of the patients. Radiologists know that supporting research into AI and advocating for its adoption in clinical settings could diminish their employment opportunities and reduce respect for their profession. This provides an incentive to oppose AI in various ways. AI developers have an incentive to hype their discoveries to gain attention. This could provide short-term personal gains, however, it could also create a distrust toward the field if it became apparent that the state of the art was far from where it was promised to be. The future research and clinical implementation of AI in radiology will be partially determined by radiologist and AI researchers. Therefore, it is very important that we recognize our own personal motivations and biases and act responsibly to ensure the highest benefit of the AI transformation to the patients., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Radiogenomics is an area of research that aims to identify associations between imaging phenotypes ("radio-") and tumor genome ("-genomics"). Breast cancer radiogenomics research in particular has been an especially prolific area of investigation in recent years as evidenced by the wide number and variety of publications and conferences presentations. To date, research has primarily been focused on dynamic contrast enhanced pre-operative breast MRI and breast cancer molecular subtypes, but investigations have extended to all breast imaging modalities as well as multiple additional genetic markers including those that are commercially available. Furthermore, both human and computer-extracted features as well as deep learning techniques have been explored. This review will summarize the specific imaging modalities used in radiogenomics analysis, describe the methods of extracting imaging features, and present the types of genomics, molecular, and related information used for analysis. Finally, the limitations and future directions of breast cancer radiogenomics research will be discussed., (Copyright © 2019 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Rationale and Objectives: To determine if background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) on screening breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in high-risk women correlates with future cancer., Materials and Methods: All screening breast MRIs (n = 1039) in high-risk women at our institution from August 1, 2004, to July 30, 2013, were identified. Sixty-one patients who subsequently developed breast cancer were matched 1:2 by age and high-risk indication with patients who did not develop breast cancer (n = 122). Five fellowship-trained breast radiologists independently recorded the BPE. The median reader BPE for each case was calculated and compared between the cancer and control cohorts., Results: Cancer cohort patients were high-risk because of a history of radiation therapy (10%, 6 of 61), high-risk lesion (18%, 11 of 61), or breast cancer (30%, 18 of 61); BRCA mutation (18%, 11 of 61); or family history (25%, 15 of 61). Subsequent malignancies were invasive ductal carcinoma (64%, 39 of 61), ductal carcinoma in situ (30%, 18 of 61) and invasive lobular carcinoma (7%, 4of 61). BPE was significantly higher in the cancer cohort than in the control cohort (P = 0.01). Women with mild, moderate, or marked BPE were 2.5 times more likely to develop breast cancer than women with minimal BPE (odds ratio = 2.5, 95% confidence interval: 1.3-4.8, P = .005). There was fair interreader agreement (κ = 0.39)., Conclusions: High-risk women with greater than minimal BPE at screening MRI have increased risk of future breast cancer., (Copyright © 2018 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Rationale and Objectives: This study aimed to determine whether mammographic features assessed by radiologists and using computer algorithms are prognostic of occult invasive disease for patients showing ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) only in core biopsy., Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, we analyzed data from 99 subjects with DCIS (74 pure DCIS, 25 DCIS with occult invasion). We developed a computer-vision algorithm capable of extracting 113 features from magnification views in mammograms and combining these features to predict whether a DCIS case will be upstaged to invasive cancer at the time of definitive surgery. In comparison, we also built predictive models based on physician-interpreted features, which included histologic features extracted from biopsy reports and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System-related mammographic features assessed by two radiologists. The generalization performance was assessed using leave-one-out cross validation with the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis., Results: Using the computer-extracted mammographic features, the multivariate classifier was able to distinguish DCIS with occult invasion from pure DCIS, with an area under the curve for receiver operating characteristic equal to 0.70 (95% confidence interval: 0.59-0.81). The physician-interpreted features including histologic features and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System-related mammographic features assessed by two radiologists showed mixed results, and only one radiologist's subjective assessment was predictive, with an area under the curve for receiver operating characteristic equal to 0.68 (95% confidence interval: 0.57-0.81)., Conclusions: Predicting upstaging for DCIS based upon mammograms is challenging, and there exists significant interobserver variability among radiologists. However, the proposed computer-extracted mammographic features are promising for the prediction of occult invasion in DCIS., (Copyright © 2017 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Rationale and Objectives: The purpose of this study was to better understand the concept of mammography difficulty and how it affects radiology resident performance., Materials and Methods: Seven radiology residents and three expert breast imagers reviewed 100 mammograms, consisting of bilateral medial lateral oblique and craniocaudal views, using a research workstation. The cases consisted of normal, benign, and malignant findings. Participants identified abnormalities and scored the difficulty and malignant potential for each case. Resident performance (sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]) was calculated for self- and expert-assessed high and low difficulties., Results: For cases classified by self-assessed difficulty, the resident AUCs were 0.667 for high difficulty and 0.771 for low difficulty cases (P = .010). Resident sensitivities were 0.707 for high and 0.614 for low difficulty cases (P = .113). Resident specificities were 0.583 for high and 0.905 for low difficulty cases (P < .001). For cases classified by expert-assessed difficulty, the resident AUCs were 0.583 for high and 0.783 for low difficulty cases (P = .001). Resident sensitivities were 0.558 for high and 0.796 for low difficulty cases (P < .001). Resident specificities were 0.714 for high and 0.740 for low difficulty cases (P = .807)., Conclusions: Increased self- and expert-assessed difficulty is associated with a decrease in resident performance in mammography. However, while this lower performance is due to a decrease in specificity for self-assessed difficulty, it is due to a decrease in sensitivity for expert-assessed difficulty. These trends suggest that educators should provide a mix of self- and expert-assessed difficult cases in educational materials to maximize the effect of training on resident performance and confidence., (Copyright © 2014 AUR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Rationale and Objectives: To evaluate radiology residency applications to determine if any variables are predictive of a future academic radiology career., Materials and Methods: Application materials from 336 radiology residency graduates between 1993 and 2010 from the Department of Radiology, Duke University and between 1990 and 2010 from the Department of Radiology, Stanford University were retrospectively reviewed. The institutional review boards approved this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant study with a waiver of informed consent. Biographical (gender, age at application, advanced degrees, prior career), undergraduate school (school, degree, research experience, publications), and medical school (school, research experience, manuscript publications, Alpha Omega Alpha membership, clerkship grades, United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 and 2 scores, personal statement and letter of recommendation reference to academics, couples match status) data were recorded. Listing in the Association of American Medical Colleges Faculty Online Directory and postgraduation publications were used to determine academic status., Results: There were 72 (21%) radiologists in an academic career and 264 (79%) in a nonacademic career. Variables associated with an academic career were elite undergraduate school (P = .003), undergraduate school publications (P = .018), additional advanced degrees (P = .027), elite medical school (P = .006), a research year in medical school (P < .001), and medical school publications (P < .001). A multivariate cross-validation analysis showed that these variables are jointly predictive of an academic career (P < .001)., Conclusions: Undergraduate and medical school rankings and publications, as well as a medical school research year and an additional advanced degree, are associated with an academic career. Radiology residency selection committees should consider these factors in the context of the residency application if they wish to recruit future academic radiologists., (Copyright © 2014 AUR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Rationale and Objective: The objective of this study is to test the hypothesis that there are patterns in erroneous assessment of BI-RADS features among radiology trainees when interpreting mammographic masses and that these patterns can be captured in individualized statistical user models. Identifying these patterns could be useful in personalizing and adapting educational material to complement the individual weaknesses of each trainee during his or her mammography education., Materials and Methods: Reading data of 33 mammographic cases containing masses was used. The cases were individually described by 10 radiology residents using four BI-RADS features: mass shape, mass margin, mass density and parenchyma density. For each resident, an individual model was automatically constructed that predicts likelihood (HIGH or LOW) of erroneously assigning each BI-RADS descriptor by the resident. Error was defined as deviation of the resident's assessment from the expert assessments. We evaluated the predictive performance of the models using leave-one-out crossvalidation., Results: The user models were able to predict which assessments have higher likelihood of error. The proportion of actual errors to the number of situations in which these errors could potentially occur was significantly higher (P < .05) when user-model assigned HIGH likelihood of error than when LOW likelihood of error was assigned for three of the four BI-RADS features. Overall, the difference between the HIGH and LOW likelihood of error groups was statistically significant (P < .0001) combining all four features., Conclusion: Error making in BI-RADS descriptor assessment appears to follow patterns that can be captured with statistical pattern recognition-based user models., (Copyright © 2012 AUR. All rights reserved.)