A large, rigorous study in Sweden of artificial intelligence (AI) in breast cancer screenings suggests AI can help doctors detect cancers more efficiently. We need more such studies to determine when the technology has real value — and when it might have risks.
Moreover, while the findings are incredibly promising, as Europe uses different processes and technologies for cancer screening, the US needs to commit to running its own similar studies to guide doctors here.
Previous large studies all looked back at old medical records to gauge whether AI could detect cancers as accurately as doctors. This study is the first trial of its size to test AI in real time on real patients — and would one day tell the field whether it actually improves the health of women. This is critical information as the technology increasingly becomes integrated into healthcare.
Illustration: Tania Chou
In the study, 80,000 women in Sweden were randomly assigned to either receive a double reading, where two independent radiologists look at the mammogram, or an AI-supported screening, which was performed by one radiologist and a computer.
The first stage of the study, the results of which were reported this week in Lancet Oncology, was designed to ask whether it was safe to integrate AI into practice. The answer is a resounding yes.
Overall, the computer helped humans flag more cancers, detecting about 20 percent more cancers than the two radiologists. Impressively, it did so with about the same rate as false positives (e.g., screens that looked like cancer, but did not turn out to be).
LOWER WORKLOAD
Moreover, the researchers clearly showed that AI can reduce the workload for radiologists. Although the team did not directly measure the number of hours saved by using a computer to analyze mammograms, they estimate that the technology reduced screen reading time by about 44 percent.
“In a situation where the medical workforce is strained, that’s a significant improvement,” said Larry Norton, medical director of the Evelyn H. Lauder Breast Center of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.
Even if the technology does not turn out to be more accurate than doctors at picking up cancers, being just as accurate, but faster would still be a major advance, he said.
Now comes the hard work of showing that this improves cancer care.
“The holy grail is really understanding whether this kind of technology improves health,” said Yale School of Medicine’s Ilana Richman, whose research focuses on evaluating new breast cancer screening technologies. “We won’t know that for some time.”
The researchers in Sweden are to continue to study the women in their trial to try to answer that question. In addition to confirming AI’s performance in detecting cancers, they are set to probe whether those additional cancers being detected are meaningful — that is, are the additional early lesions caught by the computer ones that would eventually cause a woman harm?
They would also ask whether the method can reduce the number of “interval cancers,” or ones that are found between screenings and tend to be more aggressive and deadlier.
The need for this type of careful evaluation of AI is clear. So-called computer-aided detection that used more rudimentary versions of AI was widely adopted (particularly after the US Congress required Medicare to cover its use), but it led to an increase in false positives and biopsies for precancerous cells that are not typically dangerous.
All of that came at a cost to the healthcare system — when someone was flagged by a computer, they typically would go on to other types of tests and procedures that were not needed.
For now, any efficiencies that come out of the study would mostly benefit people in Europe and Australia, where breast cancer is typically screened by a team of two radiologists that might be safely reduced to one plus a computer.
Translating the results to the US is complicated by the different standard of care — mammograms are reviewed by just one radiologist and are typically a 3D scan rather than the 2D ones used in the Sweden study.
VALUABLE LESSONS
However, there are still some lessons for the US. For example, the algorithm used in the study was remarkably good at stratifying women by cancer risk — low, intermediate or high. And it turned out that the small number of women filtered into the high-risk group had a large portion of the cancers in the study.
That points to the potential to use AI to triage the sea of exams passing before a radiologist each day, helping them prioritize the high-risk ones. That could lead to patients getting treated as quickly as possible, said Laura Heacock, a radiologist at NYU Langone Health.
Patients might be wondering where all of this is leading: One day, will their cancer be diagnosed solely by a computer?
That is a prediction that Geoffrey Hinton, one of the so-called godfathers of AI, made back in 2016.
“If you work as a radiologist, you’re like the coyote that’s already over the edge of the cliff, but hasn’t yet looked down so doesn’t realize there’s no ground underneath him,” he said, suggesting they would be obsolete in five to 10 years.
“People should stop training radiologists now,” he said.
Seven years later, Hinton himself has warned of the potential dangers of AI and urged the field to proceed with more caution. Radiologists, meanwhile, have not gone anywhere. And their jobs should not be at risk — at least not until someone actually proves that AI is not just faster, but actually makes us healthier.
Until a study finds that in the US, technology would always be an addition to, rather than a replacement for, the deep expertise of a doctor.
Lisa Jarvis is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering biotech, healthcare and the pharmaceutical industry. Previously, she was executive editor of Chemical & Engineering News. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS