K Hukkinen1, T Vehmas, M Pamilo, L Kivisaari. 1. Department of Mammography, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland. katja.hukkinen@hus.fi
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of computer-aided detection (CAD) on the reader's performance. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four screening radiologists, two novice radiologists, and two residents with no prior experience in CAD read films of 200 women without and with CAD. The films, including 16 screen-detected cancers and 35 cancers "missed" on prior screening, were divided into two rollers: A (free time schedule) and B (prompted time schedule). Reading times were noted. Individual readings without and with CAD were compared, sensitivities and specificities were calculated. RESULTS: The sensitivity of CAD was 70.6% and specificity 15.8%. In 408 cancer readings, the screeners found 10 and other readers 7 new cancers with the aid of CAD. The screeners changed their opinion four times and others six times from true positive to false negative when CAD was negative. CAD output produced 12 versus 13 new false-positive findings respectively after 2352 readings. CAD did not significantly affect the reader's sensitivities/specificities regardless of the time limit (P = not significant). The use of CAD increased mean time for roller reading from 56 to 63 min (P = 0.053). CONCLUSION: Screening radiologists benefited slightly more from CAD than other readers did, but no statistical significant difference was found in personal readings without and with CAD.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of computer-aided detection (CAD) on the reader's performance. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four screening radiologists, two novice radiologists, and two residents with no prior experience in CAD read films of 200 women without and with CAD. The films, including 16 screen-detected cancers and 35 cancers "missed" on prior screening, were divided into two rollers: A (free time schedule) and B (prompted time schedule). Reading times were noted. Individual readings without and with CAD were compared, sensitivities and specificities were calculated. RESULTS: The sensitivity of CAD was 70.6% and specificity 15.8%. In 408 cancer readings, the screeners found 10 and other readers 7 new cancers with the aid of CAD. The screeners changed their opinion four times and others six times from true positive to false negative when CAD was negative. CAD output produced 12 versus 13 new false-positive findings respectively after 2352 readings. CAD did not significantly affect the reader's sensitivities/specificities regardless of the time limit (P = not significant). The use of CAD increased mean time for roller reading from 56 to 63 min (P = 0.053). CONCLUSION: Screening radiologists benefited slightly more from CAD than other readers did, but no statistical significant difference was found in personal readings without and with CAD.
Authors: Elodia B Cole; Zheng Zhang; Helga S Marques; Robert M Nishikawa; R Edward Hendrick; Martin J Yaffe; Wittaya Padungchaichote; Cherie Kuzmiak; Jatuporn Chayakulkheeree; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Janet Baum; Constantine Gatsonis; Etta Pisano Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 3.959