PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate the sensitivity of the performance of a computer-aided detection (CAD) system applied to full-field digital mammograms for detection of breast cancers in a screening group, with histologic findings as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study had institutional review board approval, and patient informed consent was waived. A commercially available CAD system was applied to the digital mammograms of 103 women (mean age, 51 years; range, 35-69 years) with 103 breast cancers detected with screening. Sensitivity values of the CAD system according to mammographic appearance, breast composition, and histologic findings were analyzed. Normal mammograms from 100 women (mean age, 54 years; age range, 35-75 years) with no mammographic and clinical abnormality during 2-year follow-up were used to determine false-positive CAD system marks. Differences between the cancer detection rates in fatty and dense breasts for the CAD system were compared by using the chi(2) test. RESULTS: The CAD system correctly marked 99 (96.1%) of 103 breast cancers. The CAD system marked all 44 breast cancers that manifested as microcalcifications only, all 23 breast cancers that manifested as a mass with microcalcifications, and 32 (89%) of 36 lesions that appeared as a mass only. The sensitivity of the CAD system in the fatty breast group was 95% (59 of 62) and in the dense breast group was 98% (40 of 41) (P = .537). The CAD system correctly marked all 31 lesions of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), all 22 lesions of invasive ductal carcinoma with DCIS, the single invasive lobular carcinoma lesion, and 45 (92%) of 49 lesions of invasive ductal carcinoma. On normal mammograms, the mean number of false-positive marks per patient was 1.80 (range, 0-10 marks; median, 1 mark). CONCLUSION: The CAD system can correctly mark most (96.1%) asymptomatic breast cancers detected with digital mammographic screening, with acceptable false-positive marks (1.80 per patient). (c) RSNA, 2007.
PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate the sensitivity of the performance of a computer-aided detection (CAD) system applied to full-field digital mammograms for detection of breast cancers in a screening group, with histologic findings as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study had institutional review board approval, and patient informed consent was waived. A commercially available CAD system was applied to the digital mammograms of 103 women (mean age, 51 years; range, 35-69 years) with 103 breast cancers detected with screening. Sensitivity values of the CAD system according to mammographic appearance, breast composition, and histologic findings were analyzed. Normal mammograms from 100 women (mean age, 54 years; age range, 35-75 years) with no mammographic and clinical abnormality during 2-year follow-up were used to determine false-positive CAD system marks. Differences between the cancer detection rates in fatty and dense breasts for the CAD system were compared by using the chi(2) test. RESULTS: The CAD system correctly marked 99 (96.1%) of 103 breast cancers. The CAD system marked all 44 breast cancers that manifested as microcalcifications only, all 23 breast cancers that manifested as a mass with microcalcifications, and 32 (89%) of 36 lesions that appeared as a mass only. The sensitivity of the CAD system in the fatty breast group was 95% (59 of 62) and in the dense breast group was 98% (40 of 41) (P = .537). The CAD system correctly marked all 31 lesions of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), all 22 lesions of invasive ductal carcinoma with DCIS, the single invasive lobular carcinoma lesion, and 45 (92%) of 49 lesions of invasive ductal carcinoma. On normal mammograms, the mean number of false-positive marks per patient was 1.80 (range, 0-10 marks; median, 1 mark). CONCLUSION: The CAD system can correctly mark most (96.1%) asymptomatic breast cancers detected with digital mammographic screening, with acceptable false-positive marks (1.80 per patient). (c) RSNA, 2007.
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