Literature DB >> 18356428

Comparison of computer-aided detection to double reading of screening mammograms: review of 231,221 mammograms.

Matthew Gromet1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study compares the efficacy of single reading with computer-aided detection (CAD) to double reading and also to the first reader (without CAD) in a double-reading program.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A review was performed of 231,221 screening mammograms interpreted by experienced mammographers from 2001 through 2005 in a community-based mammography program. In 112,413 (48.6%), mammographers performed the first of two readings. In 118,808 (51.4%), they performed a single reading aided by CAD.
RESULTS: For double reading, the first reader's recall rate was 10.2%; sensitivity, 81.4%; positive predictive value, as a percentage of positive screening mammograms resulting in a tissue diagnosis of cancer within 1 year (PPV(1)), 4.1%; and cancer detection rate, 4.12 per 1,000. After the double-reading process, the final recall rate was 11.9%; sensitivity, 88.0%; PPV(1), 3.7%; and cancer detection rate, 4.46 per 1,000. For single-reading with CAD, the recall rate was 10.6%; sensitivity, 90.4%; PPV(1), 3.9%; and cancer detection rate, 4.20 per 1,000. Statistically significant results included a lower recall rate with CAD compared with double reading (10.6% vs 11.9%, respectively; p < 0.0001); increased sensitivity with CAD compared with the first reader (90.4% vs 81.4%, p < 0.0001); and increased recall rate with CAD compared with the first reader (10.6% vs 10.2%, p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: Double reading increased sensitivity with a modest increase in the recall rate compared with single reading. Single reading with CAD, compared with double reading, resulted in a small, but not statistically significant, increase in sensitivity with a lower recall rate. Our results indicate that CAD enhances performance of a single reader, yielding increased sensitivity with only a small increase in recall rate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18356428     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.07.2812

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  36 in total

1.  Computer-aided detection of clustered microcalcifications in digital breast tomosynthesis: a 3D approach.

Authors:  Berkman Sahiner; Heang-Ping Chan; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Mark A Helvie; Jun Wei; Chuan Zhou; Yao Lu
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Automated detection of mass lesions in dedicated breast CT: a preliminary study.

Authors:  I Reiser; R M Nishikawa; M L Giger; J M Boone; K K Lindfors; K Yang
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Exploring the potential of context-sensitive CADe in screening mammography.

Authors:  Georgia D Tourassi; Maciej A Mazurowski; Brian P Harrawood; Elizabeth A Krupinski
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 4.  Anniversary paper: History and status of CAD and quantitative image analysis: the role of Medical Physics and AAPM.

Authors:  Maryellen L Giger; Heang-Ping Chan; John Boone
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Evaluation of computer-aided detection and diagnosis systems.

Authors:  Nicholas Petrick; Berkman Sahiner; Samuel G Armato; Alberto Bert; Loredana Correale; Silvia Delsanto; Matthew T Freedman; David Fryd; David Gur; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Zhimin Huo; Yulei Jiang; Lia Morra; Sophie Paquerault; Vikas Raykar; Frank Samuelson; Ronald M Summers; Georgia Tourassi; Hiroyuki Yoshida; Bin Zheng; Chuan Zhou; Heang-Ping Chan
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Computer-aided detection of breast masses: four-view strategy for screening mammography.

Authors:  Jun Wei; Heang-Ping Chan; Chuan Zhou; Yi-Ta Wu; Berkman Sahiner; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Mark A Helvie
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  False positive marks on unsuspicious screening mammography with computer-aided detection.

Authors:  Mary C Mahoney; Karthikeyan Meganathan
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 4.056

8.  Longitudinal disease detection rates for the evaluation of disease detection technologies with application in high-risk breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Jacob Levman
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2013-10-22

9.  Short-term outcomes of screening mammography using computer-aided detection: a population-based study of medicare enrollees.

Authors:  Joshua J Fenton; Guibo Xing; Joann G Elmore; Heejung Bang; Steven L Chen; Karen K Lindfors; Laura-Mae Baldwin
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2013-04-16       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  "CADEAT": considerations on the use of CAD (computer-aided diagnosis) in mammography.

Authors:  R Chersevani; S Ciatto; C Del Favero; A Frigerio; L Giordano; G Giuseppetti; C Naldoni; P Panizza; M Petrella; G Saguatti
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2010-01-15       Impact factor: 3.469

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.