ABSTRACT
Objective In recent years artificial intelligence-enhanced breast thermography is increasingly being evaluated as an ancillary modality in the evaluation of breast disease. The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of Thermalytix, a CE-marked system that analyzes thermal images using advanced thermal radiomics against unaided manual interpretation of thermographic images by trained thermologists.
Methods In this retrospective, multi-reader study, thermal imaging data of 258 women who participated in a previously published clinical trial were used. These images were read manually by 3 trained thermologists independent of each other, using the approved scoring system of the American Association of Thermologists. None of the readers were involved in the collection of the images in the study cases. The images were then evaluated by the Thermalytix system, which is a commercially available software that automatically extracts hotspot, areolar and nipple radiomic parameters with a total of 64 individual radiomic features being analyzed using 3 random forest classifiers configured for 200 decision trees to generate a score predictive of the presence of breast cancer in the region of interest. The manual interpretation and Thermalytix interpretation were compared for sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value and receiver operating characteristic curves were created to estimate prediction accuracy.
Results Automated Thermalytix had sensitivity and specificity of 95.2% and 66.7% respectively while AUROC of 0.85 (13.7% greater) than manual interpretation. Further, hotspot and vascular scores derived in the automated Thermalytix are the strongest predictors of breast cancer lesions (AUROC: 0.84 and 0.83, respectively).
Conclusions Overall this suggests that automated AI-based Thermalytix has higher accuracy in the prediction of breast cancer lesions and must be further investigated in the wider women population to validate its use in hospital settings as a screening modality for breast cancer.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Retrospectively examined data and images that had been collected from the Institutional Review Board-approved prospective multicentric clinical trial (CTRI/2017/10/010115) conducted from September 2017 to July 2018 at the following two clinical sites: Narayana Hrudayalaya (NH) and Health Care Global (HCG), Bangalore, Karnataka, India.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
