Urging caution on AI in mammography

Translate to Spanish or other 102 languages!

Doctors should proceed cautiously, because similar technological leaps previously led to higher rates of false-positive tests and over-treatment. Newswise Image
Doctors should proceed cautiously, because similar technological leaps previously led to higher rates of false-positive tests and over-treatment. Newswise Image

Mega Doctor News

- Advertisement -

 By University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Health Sciences 

Newswise — Analyzing breast-cancer tumors with artificial intelligence has the potential to improve healthcare efficiency and outcomes. But doctors should proceed cautiously, because similar technological leaps previously led to higher rates of false-positive tests and over-treatment.

That’s according to a new editorial in JAMA Health Forum co-written by Joann G. Elmore, MD, MPH, a researcher at the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, the Rosalinde and Arthur Gilbert Foundation Endowed Chair in Health Care Delivery and professor of medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA.

- Advertisement -

“Without a more robust approach to the evaluation and implementation of AI, given the unabated adoption of emergent technology in clinical practice, we are failing to learn from our past mistakes in mammography,” the JAMA Health Forum editorial states. The piece, posted online Friday, was co-written with Christoph I. Lee, MD, MS, MBA, a professor of radiology at the University of Washington School of Medicine.

One of those “past mistakes in mammography,” according to the authors, was adjunct computer-aided detection (CAD) tools, which grew rapidly in popularity in the field of breast cancer screening starting more than two decades ago. CAD was approved by the FDA in 1998, and by 2016 more than 92% of U.S. imaging facilities were using the technology to interpret mammograms and hunt for tumors. But the evidence showed CAD did not improve mammography accuracy. “CAD tools are associated with increased false positive rates, leading to overdiagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ and unnecessary diagnostic testing,” the authors wrote. Medicare stopped paying for CAD in 2018, but by then the tools had racked up more than $400 million a year in unnecessary health costs.

“The premature adoption of CAD is a premonitory symptom of the wholehearted embrace of emergent technologies prior to fully understanding their impact on patient outcomes,” Elmore and Lee wrote.

The doctors suggest several safeguards to put in place to avoid “repeating past mistakes,” including tying Medicare reimbursement to “improved patient outcomes, not just improved technical performance in artificial settings.”

- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -

- Advertisement -

More Articles

STHS Children’s Celebrates 20 Years of Care, Healing and Hope

Mega Doctor News For decades, families across the Rio Grande Valley lacked...

Researchers Uncover Why Colorectal Tumors Rely on Sugar to Grow

Despite advances in surgery and therapies, patients with metastatic colorectal cancer continue to have poor outcomes, highlighting the need for novel treatments.

How One Couple Helped Shape Health Care Education at STC

For more than three decades, South Texas College faculty Ricardo and Abigail Rodriguez, Ed.D., have mentored generations of students while building a life together.

Cedars‑Sinai Develops AI Platform to Guide Pancreatic Cancer Treatment Choices

A new tool co-developed by investigators from Cedars-Sinai Health Sciences University can predict which of two available chemotherapy options for pancreatic cancer would be more effective for an individual patient.
- Advertisement -