PURPOSE: The study compares the diagnostic accuracy (correct identification of cancer) of a new computer-assisted diagnosis (CAD) system (Cyclopus) with two other commercial systems (R2 and CADx). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cyclopus was tested on a set of 120 mammograms on which the two compared commercial systems had been previously tested. The set consisted of mammograms reported as negative, preceding 31 interval cancers reviewed as screening error or minimal sign, and of 89 verified negative controls randomly selected from the same screening database. RESULTS: Cyclopus sensitivity was 74.1% (R2=54.8%; CADx=41.9%) and was higher for interval cancers reviewed as screening error (90.9%; R2=54.5%; CADx=81.8%) compared with those reviewed as minimal sign (65.0%; R2=55.0%; CADx=20.0%). Specificity was 15.7% (R2=29.2%; CADx=17.9%). Overall accuracy was 30.8% (R2=35.8%; CADx=24.1%). The positive predictive value of a case with CAD marks [regions of interest (ROI)] was 23.4% (23/98; R2=16.0%; CADx=15.1%). Average ROI number per view among negative controls was 1.13 (R2=0.93; CADx=0.99). Cyclopus was more sensitive for masses compared with isolated microcalcifications (208 vs 62 ROI; R2=90 vs 213; CADx=192 vs 130). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with two other commercial systems, Cyclopus was more sensitive (R2 p=0.14; CADx p=0.02) and less specific (R2 p=0.02; CADx p=0.64).
PURPOSE: The study compares the diagnostic accuracy (correct identification of cancer) of a new computer-assisted diagnosis (CAD) system (Cyclopus) with two other commercial systems (R2 and CADx). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cyclopus was tested on a set of 120 mammograms on which the two compared commercial systems had been previously tested. The set consisted of mammograms reported as negative, preceding 31 interval cancers reviewed as screening error or minimal sign, and of 89 verified negative controls randomly selected from the same screening database. RESULTS: Cyclopus sensitivity was 74.1% (R2=54.8%; CADx=41.9%) and was higher for interval cancers reviewed as screening error (90.9%; R2=54.5%; CADx=81.8%) compared with those reviewed as minimal sign (65.0%; R2=55.0%; CADx=20.0%). Specificity was 15.7% (R2=29.2%; CADx=17.9%). Overall accuracy was 30.8% (R2=35.8%; CADx=24.1%). The positive predictive value of a case with CAD marks [regions of interest (ROI)] was 23.4% (23/98; R2=16.0%; CADx=15.1%). Average ROI number per view among negative controls was 1.13 (R2=0.93; CADx=0.99). Cyclopus was more sensitive for masses compared with isolated microcalcifications (208 vs 62 ROI; R2=90 vs 213; CADx=192 vs 130). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with two other commercial systems, Cyclopus was more sensitive (R2 p=0.14; CADx p=0.02) and less specific (R2 p=0.02; CADx p=0.64).
Authors: D Roder; N Houssami; G Farshid; G Gill; C Luke; P Downey; K Beckmann; P Iosifidis; L Grieve; L Williamson Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2007-05-22 Impact factor: 4.872
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
Authors: Sabina Tangaro; Nicola Amoroso; Massimo Brescia; Stefano Cavuoti; Andrea Chincarini; Rosangela Errico; Paolo Inglese; Giuseppe Longo; Rosalia Maglietta; Andrea Tateo; Giuseppe Riccio; Roberto Bellotti Journal: Comput Math Methods Med Date: 2015-05-18 Impact factor: 2.238