Potential role of AI decision support in reducing unnecessary ultrasound-guided breast biopsies

Abstract Background Ultrasound (US)-guided breast biopsy is widely used for evaluating suspicious breast lesions; yet, many biopsied lesions prove to be benign, resulting in potentially unnecessary invasive procedures. Improving diagnostic specificity without compromising sensitivity remains a key challenge in breast imaging, and artificial intelligence-based decision support systems have emerged as promising tools to assist radiologists in biopsy decision-making. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic effectiveness of an AI-DS system with that of experienced breast radiologists in evaluating lesions that underwent US-guided biopsy, and to assess the potential of AI-DS in reducing unnecessary biopsies. Methods BI-RADS scores assigned by radiologists and the AI-DS were retrospectively analyzed in 453 breast lesions biopsied between October 2021 and March 2024. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), accuracy, and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated for reader A, reader B, and the AI-DS. Diagnostic performance was compared using ROC analysis, McNemar tests, and generalized estimating equations. Results The AI-DS demonstrated significantly higher specificity, PPV, and accuracy than both radiologists (all p < 0.001 ). The AUC was 0.681 (95% CI = 0.633–0.729) for the AI-DS, 0.556 (95% CI = 0.502–0.610) for reader A, and 0.574 (95% CI = 0.521–0.627) for reader B. Subgroup analyses showed that the AI-DS yielded more accurate results than radiologists across most subcategories. In a hypothetical scenario, if 84 BI-RADS 4A lesions downgraded by AI-DS had not been biopsied, the biopsy rate could have been reduced by 18.6% (84/453) while missing only one malignant lesion. Conclusion The AI-DS demonstrated sensitivity comparable to radiologists while providing higher specificity and accuracy. In cases where radiologists classify lesions as BI-RADS 4A but the AI-DS predicts BI-RADS 2 or 3, the AI output could prompt reconsideration of biopsy necessity and support short-term imaging follow-up instead.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine
Published
2026-01-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s43055-026-01684-5
Primary Topic
Breast Lesions and Carcinomas
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Potential role of AI decision support in reducing unnecessary ultrasound-guided breast biopsies

Fatma Tokat, Meliha Akin, Servet Erdemli, Fusun Taskin et al.
The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine
Breast Lesions and Carcinomas
article

Potential role of AI decision support in reducing unnecessary ultrasound-guided breast biopsies

Fatma Tokat, Meliha Akin, Servet Erdemli, Fusun Taskin, Onur Dulgeroglu
article en

Abstract

Abstract Background Ultrasound (US)-guided breast biopsy is widely used for evaluating suspicious breast lesions; yet, many biopsied lesions prove to be benign, resulting in potentially unnecessary invasive procedures. Improving diagnostic specificity without compromising sensitivity remains a key challenge in breast imaging, and artificial intelligence-based decision support systems have emerged as promising tools to assist radiologists in biopsy decision-making. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic effectiveness of an AI-DS system with that of experienced breast radiologists in evaluating lesions that underwent US-guided biopsy, and to assess the potential of AI-DS in reducing unnecessary biopsies. Methods BI-RADS scores assigned by radiologists and the AI-DS were retrospectively analyzed in 453 breast lesions biopsied between October 2021 and March 2024. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), accuracy, and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated for reader A, reader B, and the AI-DS. Diagnostic performance was compared using ROC analysis, McNemar tests, and generalized estimating equations. Results The AI-DS demonstrated significantly higher specificity, PPV, and accuracy than both radiologists (all p < 0.001 ). The AUC was 0.681 (95% CI = 0.633–0.729) for the AI-DS, 0.556 (95% CI = 0.502–0.610) for reader A, and 0.574 (95% CI = 0.521–0.627) for reader B. Subgroup analyses showed that the AI-DS yielded more accurate results than radiologists across most subcategories. In a hypothetical scenario, if 84 BI-RADS 4A lesions downgraded by AI-DS had not been biopsied, the biopsy rate could have been reduced by 18.6% (84/453) while missing only one malignant lesion. Conclusion The AI-DS demonstrated sensitivity comparable to radiologists while providing higher specificity and accuracy. In cases where radiologists classify lesions as BI-RADS 4A but the AI-DS predicts BI-RADS 2 or 3, the AI output could prompt reconsideration of biopsy necessity and support short-term imaging follow-up instead.

The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear MedicineVol. 57(1)
Kent Hastanesi (TR)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 75%
Breast Lesions and Carcinomas
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.