PURPOSE: To evaluate, by using a computer-aided detection (CAD) program, the nonspecific findings on normal screening mammograms obtained in women in whom breast cancer was later detected at follow-up screening mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four hundred ninety-three mammogram pairs-an initial negative screening mammogram and a subsequently obtained screening mammogram showing cancer-were collected. The mean interval between examinations was 14.6 months. In 169 cases, in which 172 cancers were later depicted, findings on the initial mammogram were subtle enough that either none or only one or two of five blinded radiologists recommended screening recall. On the initial negative mammograms, of the 172 areas where cancer later developed, 137 (80%) had subtle nonspecific findings and were retrospectively judged as having a benign or normal appearance. The mammograms with these subtle findings were evaluated with a commercially available CAD program, and the numbers of CAD marks on these nonspecific findings were analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 172 cancers, 129 (75%) were invasive and 43 (25%) were ductal carcinoma in situ. The CAD program marked 72 (42%) of the 172 findings that subsequently developed into cancer: 24 (29%) of 82 findings recalled by none, 25 (49%) of 51 findings recalled by one, and 23 (59%) of 39 findings recalled by two of the five radiologists. Among the 137 areas with nonspecific normal or benign findings, 41 (30%) areas where cancer subsequently developed were marked by the CAD program. CONCLUSION: A subset of cancers have perceptible but nonspecific mammographic findings that may be marked by a CAD program, even when the findings do not warrant recall as judged at blinded and unblinded radiologist review. The authors believe failure to act on such nonspecific but CAD-marked findings prospectively does not constitute interpretation below a reasonable standard of care. Copyright RSNA, 2004
PURPOSE: To evaluate, by using a computer-aided detection (CAD) program, the nonspecific findings on normal screening mammograms obtained in women in whom breast cancer was later detected at follow-up screening mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four hundred ninety-three mammogram pairs-an initial negative screening mammogram and a subsequently obtained screening mammogram showing cancer-were collected. The mean interval between examinations was 14.6 months. In 169 cases, in which 172 cancers were later depicted, findings on the initial mammogram were subtle enough that either none or only one or two of five blinded radiologists recommended screening recall. On the initial negative mammograms, of the 172 areas where cancer later developed, 137 (80%) had subtle nonspecific findings and were retrospectively judged as having a benign or normal appearance. The mammograms with these subtle findings were evaluated with a commercially available CAD program, and the numbers of CAD marks on these nonspecific findings were analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 172 cancers, 129 (75%) were invasive and 43 (25%) were ductal carcinoma in situ. The CAD program marked 72 (42%) of the 172 findings that subsequently developed into cancer: 24 (29%) of 82 findings recalled by none, 25 (49%) of 51 findings recalled by one, and 23 (59%) of 39 findings recalled by two of the five radiologists. Among the 137 areas with nonspecific normal or benign findings, 41 (30%) areas where cancer subsequently developed were marked by the CAD program. CONCLUSION: A subset of cancers have perceptible but nonspecific mammographic findings that may be marked by a CAD program, even when the findings do not warrant recall as judged at blinded and unblinded radiologist review. The authors believe failure to act on such nonspecific but CAD-marked findings prospectively does not constitute interpretation below a reasonable standard of care. Copyright RSNA, 2004
Authors: Jun Wei; Heang-Ping Chan; Berkman Sahiner; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Mark A Helvie; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Chuan Zhou; Jun Ge Journal: Med Phys Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Scott Mayer McKinney; Marcin Sieniek; Varun Godbole; Jonathan Godwin; Natasha Antropova; Hutan Ashrafian; Trevor Back; Mary Chesus; Greg S Corrado; Ara Darzi; Mozziyar Etemadi; Florencia Garcia-Vicente; Fiona J Gilbert; Mark Halling-Brown; Demis Hassabis; Sunny Jansen; Alan Karthikesalingam; Christopher J Kelly; Dominic King; Joseph R Ledsam; David Melnick; Hormuz Mostofi; Lily Peng; Joshua Jay Reicher; Bernardino Romera-Paredes; Richard Sidebottom; Mustafa Suleyman; Daniel Tse; Kenneth C Young; Jeffrey De Fauw; Shravya Shetty Journal: Nature Date: 2020-01-01 Impact factor: 49.962