Empowering breast cancer diagnosis and radiology practice: advances in artificial intelligence for contrast-enhanced mammography.

Artificial intelligence (AI) applications in breast imaging span a wide range of tasks including decision support, risk assessment, patient management, quality assessment, treatment response assessment and image enhancement. However, their integration into the clinical workflow has been slow due to the lack of a consensus on data quality, benchmarked robust implementation, and consensus-based guidelines to ensure standardization and generalization. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has improved sensitivity and specificity compared to current standards of breast cancer diagnostic imaging i.e., mammography (MG) and/or conventional ultrasound (US), with comparable accuracy to MRI (current diagnostic imaging benchmark), but at a much lower cost and higher throughput. This makes CEM an excellent tool for widespread breast lesion characterization for all women, including underserved and minority women. Underlining the critical need for early detection and accurate diagnosis of breast cancer, this review examines the limitations of conventional approaches and reveals how AI can help overcome them. The Methodical approaches, such as image processing, feature extraction, quantitative analysis, lesion classification, lesion segmentation, integration with clinical data, early detection, and screening support have been carefully analysed in recent studies addressing breast cancer detection and diagnosis. Recent guidelines described by Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM) to establish a robust framework for rigorous evaluation and surveying has inspired the current review criteria.

Informations de copyright

© 2024 Kinkar, Fields, Yamashita and Varghese.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The reviewer MYLS declared a shared affiliation with the author BAV to the handling editor at the time of the review. The authors BAV and BKKF declared that they were editorial board members of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.