Literature DB >> 19527363

Early detection of breast cancer: overview of the evidence on computer-aided detection in mammography screening.

N Houssami1, R Given-Wilson, S Ciatto.   

Abstract

We review the evidence on computer-aided detection (CAD) as an adjunct to mammography interpretation, and discuss the complexity of its impact on decision-making and potential medico-legal aspects. CAD prompts the reader to review lesions on the mammogram and re-evaluate the decision on whether to recall CAD-prompted findings. Studies show that CAD can improve the sensitivity of a single reader, with an incremental cancer detection rate (from adding CAD to a single read) ranging between 1 and 19%. However, CAD will also substantially increase the recall rate (decrease the reader's specificity) causing additional recall in approximately 6-35% of women. Evidence indicates that CAD does not perform as well as double (human) reading in the context of organized breast screening where double reading is the standard of care. Although CAD can identify and prompt readers to missed cancers, the high number of false-positive prompts (1.5-4 false prompts per case) can have an adverse effect on clinical decision-making, and detracts from CAD's application in screening practice. Refinement in CAD algorithms, in combination with increasing implementation of digital mammography, may improve the potential use of CAD in mammography reading, but will require prospective evaluation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19527363     DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-9485.2009.02062.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol        ISSN: 1754-9477            Impact factor:   1.735


  15 in total

1.  Standalone computer-aided detection compared to radiologists' performance for the detection of mammographic masses.

Authors:  Rianne Hupse; Maurice Samulski; Marc Lobbes; Ard den Heeten; Mechli W Imhof-Tas; David Beijerinck; Ruud Pijnappel; Carla Boetes; Nico Karssemeijer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-07-08       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Malpractice claims related to musculoskeletal imaging. Incidence and anatomical location of lesions.

Authors:  Adriano Fileni; Gaia Fileni; Paoletta Mirk; Giulia Magnavita; Marzia Nicoli; Nicola Magnavita
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2013-06-25       Impact factor: 3.469

3.  Radiologists' perceptions of computer aided detection versus double reading for mammography interpretation.

Authors:  Tracy Onega; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Diana L Miglioretti; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske; Edward A Sickles; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 3.173

4.  A Warning about Warning Signals for Interpreting Mammograms.

Authors:  Solveig Hofvind; Christoph I Lee
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2021-11-09       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  A Novel CNN pooling layer for breast cancer segmentation and classification from thermograms.

Authors:  Esraa A Mohamed; Tarek Gaber; Omar Karam; Essam A Rashed
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-10-21       Impact factor: 3.752

6.  Using computer-aided detection in mammography as a decision support.

Authors:  Maurice Samulski; Rianne Hupse; Carla Boetes; Roel D M Mus; Gerard J den Heeten; Nico Karssemeijer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-06-09       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 7.  Is the false-positive rate in mammography in North America too high?

Authors:  Michelle T Le; Carmel E Mothersill; Colin B Seymour; Fiona E McNeill
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-06-08       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 8.  Is single reading with computer-aided detection (CAD) as good as double reading in mammography screening? A systematic review.

Authors:  Edward Azavedo; Sophia Zackrisson; Ingegerd Mejàre; Marianne Heibert Arnlind
Journal:  BMC Med Imaging       Date:  2012-07-24       Impact factor: 1.930

9.  Is computer aided detection (CAD) cost effective in screening mammography? A model based on the CADET II study.

Authors:  Carla Guerriero; Maureen G C Gillan; John Cairns; Matthew G Wallis; Fiona J Gilbert
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2011-01-17       Impact factor: 2.655

10.  Automated breast image classification using features from its discrete cosine transform.

Authors:  Edward J Kendall; Matthew T Flynn
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-03-14       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.