R F Brem1, J M Schoonjans. 1. The Breast Imaging and Interventional Center, 2150 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC 20037, USA. radrfb@gwumc.edu
Abstract
AIM: To compare the sensitivity and specificity of microcalcification detection by radiologists alone and assisted by a computer-aided detection (CAD) system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Films of 106 patients were masked, randomized, digitized and analysed by the CAD-system. Five readers interpreted the original mammograms and were blinded to demographics, medical history and earlier films. Forty-two mammograms with malignant microcalcifications, 40 with benign microcalcifications and 24 normal mammograms were included. Results were recorded on a standardized image interpretation form. The mammograms with suspicious areas flagged by the CAD-system were displayed on mini-monitors and immediately re-reviewed. The interpretation was again recorded on a new copy of the standard form and classified according to six groups. RESULTS:Forty-one out of 42 (98%) malignant microcalcifications and 32 of 40 (80%) benign microcalcifications were flagged by the CAD-system. There was an average of 1.2 markers per image. The sensitivity for malignant microcalcifications detection by mammographers without and with the CAD-system ranged from 81% to 98% and from 88% to 98%, respectively. The mean difference without and with CAD-system was 2.2% (range 0-7%). CONCLUSION: No statistically significant changes in sensitivity were found when experienced mammographers were assisted by the CAD-system, with no significant compromise in specificity. Copyright 2001 The Royal College of Radiologists.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To compare the sensitivity and specificity of microcalcification detection by radiologists alone and assisted by a computer-aided detection (CAD) system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Films of 106 patients were masked, randomized, digitized and analysed by the CAD-system. Five readers interpreted the original mammograms and were blinded to demographics, medical history and earlier films. Forty-two mammograms with malignant microcalcifications, 40 with benign microcalcifications and 24 normal mammograms were included. Results were recorded on a standardized image interpretation form. The mammograms with suspicious areas flagged by the CAD-system were displayed on mini-monitors and immediately re-reviewed. The interpretation was again recorded on a new copy of the standard form and classified according to six groups. RESULTS: Forty-one out of 42 (98%) malignant microcalcifications and 32 of 40 (80%) benign microcalcifications were flagged by the CAD-system. There was an average of 1.2 markers per image. The sensitivity for malignant microcalcifications detection by mammographers without and with the CAD-system ranged from 81% to 98% and from 88% to 98%, respectively. The mean difference without and with CAD-system was 2.2% (range 0-7%). CONCLUSION: No statistically significant changes in sensitivity were found when experienced mammographers were assisted by the CAD-system, with no significant compromise in specificity. Copyright 2001 The Royal College of Radiologists.
Authors: Joshua J Fenton; Stephen H Taplin; Patricia A Carney; Linn Abraham; Edward A Sickles; Carl D'Orsi; Eric A Berns; Gary Cutter; R Edward Hendrick; William E Barlow; Joann G Elmore Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-04-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Alejandro Tejerina Bernal; Antonio Tejerina Bernal; Francisco Rabadán Doreste; Ana De Lara González; Juan Antonio Roselló Llerena; Armando Tejerina Gómez Journal: J Oncol Date: 2012-07-05 Impact factor: 4.375