Literature DB >> 11734939

Tumour detection rate of a new commercially available computer-aided detection system.

A Malich1, C Marx, M Facius, T Boehm, M Fleck, W A Kaiser.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the tumour detection rate and false positive rate of a new mammographic computer-aided detection system (CAD) in order to assess its clinical usefulness. The craniocaudal and oblique images of 150 suspicious mammograms from 150 patients that were histologically proven to be malignant were analysed using the Second Look CAD (CADx Medical Systems, Quebec, Canada). Cases were selected randomly using the clinic's internal tumour case sampler. Correct marking of the malignant lesion in at least one view was scored as a true positive. Marks not at the location of the malignant lesion were scored as false positives. In addition, mammograms with histologically proven benign masses ( n=50) and microcalcifications ( n=50), as well as 100 non-suspicious mammograms, were scanned in order to determine the value of false-positive marks per image. The 150 mammograms included 94 lesions that were suspicious due to masses, 26 due to microcalcifications and 30 showed both signs of malignancy. The overall sensitivity was 90.0% (135 of 150). Sensitivity on subsets of the data was 88.7% (110 of 124) for suspicious masses (MA) and 98.2% (55 of 56) for microcalcifications. Eight of 14 false-negative cases were large lesions. The overall false-positive rate was observed as 0.28 and 0.97 marks per image of microcalcifications and masses, respectively. The lowest false-positive rates for microcalcifications and MA were observed in the cancer subgroup, whereas the highest false-positive rates were scored in the benign but mammographically suspicious subgroups, respectively. The new CAD system shows a high tumour detection rate, with approximately 1.3 false positive marks per image. These results suggest that this system might be clinically useful as a second reader of mammograms. The system performance was particularly useful for detecting microcalcifications.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11734939     DOI: 10.1007/s003300101079

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  12 in total

Review 1.  [Clinical results of digital mammography].

Authors:  R Schulz-Wendtland; K-P Hermann; W Bautz
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 0.635

2.  Impact of breast density on computer-aided detection in full-field digital mammography.

Authors:  Silvia Obenauer; Christian Sohns; Carola Werner; Eckhardt Grabbe
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 4.056

Review 3.  CAD for mammography: the technique, results, current role and further developments.

Authors:  Ansgar Malich; Dorothee R Fischer; Joachim Böttcher
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-01-17       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Mammographic mass detection using a mass template.

Authors:  Serhat Ozekes; Onur Osman; A Yilmaz Camurcu
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2005 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 3.500

Review 5.  [Current situation and future perspectives of digital mammography].

Authors:  R Schulz-Wendtland; K-P Hermann; T Wacker; W Bautz
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 0.635

6.  Computer-aided detection of breast masses depicted on full-field digital mammograms: a performance assessment.

Authors:  B Zheng; J H Sumkin; M L Zuley; D Lederman; X Wang; D Gur
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-02-22       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Effect of breast density on computer aided detection.

Authors:  Ansgar Malich; Dorothee R Fischer; Mirjam Facius; Alexander Petrovitch; Joachim Boettcher; Christiane Marx; Andreas Hansch; Werner A Kaiser
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 4.056

8.  Probabilistic computer model developed from clinical data in national mammography database format to classify mammographic findings.

Authors:  Elizabeth S Burnside; Jesse Davis; Jagpreet Chhatwal; Oguzhan Alagoz; Mary J Lindstrom; Berta M Geller; Benjamin Littenberg; Katherine A Shaffer; Charles E Kahn; C David Page
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-04-14       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 9.  Is single reading with computer-aided detection (CAD) as good as double reading in mammography screening? A systematic review.

Authors:  Edward Azavedo; Sophia Zackrisson; Ingegerd Mejàre; Marianne Heibert Arnlind
Journal:  BMC Med Imaging       Date:  2012-07-24       Impact factor: 1.930

10.  CAD May Not be Necessary for Microcalcifications in the Digital era, CAD May Benefit Radiologists for Masses.

Authors:  Stamatia V Destounis; Andrea L Arieno; Renee C Morgan
Journal:  J Clin Imaging Sci       Date:  2012-07-28
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.