OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance and potential contribution of computer-aided detection (CAD) to independent double reading of paired screen-film and full-field digital screening mammograms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The cases of 3,683 women who underwent both screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) with independent double reading for each technique were followed for 2 years to include cancers detected in the interval between screening rounds and cancers detected at the next screening round. Fifty-five biopsy-proven cancers were diagnosed. The baseline screening mammograms of the 55 cancers were defined as having positive findings if at least one of two independent readers scored it 2 or higher on a 5-point rating scale. The baseline mammograms of interval (n = 10) or secondround (n = 16) cancers were retrospectively classified as overlooked (n = 2), minimal sign actionable (n = 8), minimal sign nonactionable (n = 5), and normal (n = 11). The baseline mammograms of these cases of cancer were evaluated with a CAD system, and the CAD results were compared (McNemar's test for paired proportions) with the findings at prospective independent double reading of mammograms obtained with each technique. RESULTS: For FFDM, CAD sensitivity was 95% (37/39) compared with 64% (25/39) for double reading (p = 0.006), and for screen-film mammography, CAD sensitivity was 85% (33/39) compared with 77% (30/39) for prospective double reading (p = 0.57) of radiographically visible lesions in baseline mammograms. CAD correctly marked five (13%) of 39 cancers on screen-film mammography and 14 (36%) of 39 cancers on FFDM not detected at prospective independent double reading. CONCLUSION: CAD showed the potential to increase the cancer detection rate for FFDM and for screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening performed with independent double reading.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance and potential contribution of computer-aided detection (CAD) to independent double reading of paired screen-film and full-field digital screening mammograms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The cases of 3,683 women who underwent both screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) with independent double reading for each technique were followed for 2 years to include cancers detected in the interval between screening rounds and cancers detected at the next screening round. Fifty-five biopsy-proven cancers were diagnosed. The baseline screening mammograms of the 55 cancers were defined as having positive findings if at least one of two independent readers scored it 2 or higher on a 5-point rating scale. The baseline mammograms of interval (n = 10) or secondround (n = 16) cancers were retrospectively classified as overlooked (n = 2), minimal sign actionable (n = 8), minimal sign nonactionable (n = 5), and normal (n = 11). The baseline mammograms of these cases of cancer were evaluated with a CAD system, and the CAD results were compared (McNemar's test for paired proportions) with the findings at prospective independent double reading of mammograms obtained with each technique. RESULTS: For FFDM, CAD sensitivity was 95% (37/39) compared with 64% (25/39) for double reading (p = 0.006), and for screen-film mammography, CAD sensitivity was 85% (33/39) compared with 77% (30/39) for prospective double reading (p = 0.57) of radiographically visible lesions in baseline mammograms. CAD correctly marked five (13%) of 39 cancers on screen-film mammography and 14 (36%) of 39 cancers on FFDM not detected at prospective independent double reading. CONCLUSION: CAD showed the potential to increase the cancer detection rate for FFDM and for screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening performed with independent double reading.
Authors: Solveig Hofvind; Pamela M Vacek; Joan Skelly; Donald L Weaver; Berta M Geller Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2008-07-29 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Brigid K Killelea; Jessica B Long; Anees B Chagpar; Xiaomei Ma; Rong Wang; Joseph S Ross; Cary P Gross Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-07-16 Impact factor: 13.506
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