PURPOSE: To prospectively determine the interpretation time associated with computer-aided detection (CAD) and to analyze how CAD affected radiologists' decisions and their level of confidence in their interpretations of digital screening mammograms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An Institutional Review Board exemption was obtained, and patient consent was waived in this HIPAA compliant study. The participating radiologists gave informed consent. Five radiologists were prospectively studied as they interpreted 267 clinical digital screening mammograms. Interpretation times, recall decisions, and confidence levels were recorded without CAD and then with CAD. Software was used for linear regression fitting of interpretation times. P values less than .05 were considered to indicate statistically significant differences. RESULTS: Mean interpretation time without CAD was 118 seconds ± 4.2 (standard error of the mean). Mean time for reviewing CAD images was 23 seconds ± 1.5. CAD identified additional findings in five cases, increased confidence in 38 cases, and decreased confidence in 21 cases. Interpretation time without CAD increased with the number of mammographic views (P < .0001). Mean times for interpretation without CAD and review of the CAD images both increased with the number of CAD marks (P < .0001). The interpreting radiologist was a significant variable for all interpretation times (P < .0001). Interpretation time with CAD increased by 3.2 seconds (95% confidence interval: 1.8, 4.6) for each calcification cluster marked and by 7.3 seconds (95% confidence interval: 4.7, 9.9) for each mass marked. CONCLUSION: The additional time required to review CAD images represented a 19% increase in the mean interpretation time without CAD. CAD requires a considerable time investment for digital screening mammography but may provide less measureable benefits in terms of confidence of the radiologists.
PURPOSE: To prospectively determine the interpretation time associated with computer-aided detection (CAD) and to analyze how CAD affected radiologists' decisions and their level of confidence in their interpretations of digital screening mammograms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An Institutional Review Board exemption was obtained, and patient consent was waived in this HIPAA compliant study. The participating radiologists gave informed consent. Five radiologists were prospectively studied as they interpreted 267 clinical digital screening mammograms. Interpretation times, recall decisions, and confidence levels were recorded without CAD and then with CAD. Software was used for linear regression fitting of interpretation times. P values less than .05 were considered to indicate statistically significant differences. RESULTS: Mean interpretation time without CAD was 118 seconds ± 4.2 (standard error of the mean). Mean time for reviewing CAD images was 23 seconds ± 1.5. CAD identified additional findings in five cases, increased confidence in 38 cases, and decreased confidence in 21 cases. Interpretation time without CAD increased with the number of mammographic views (P < .0001). Mean times for interpretation without CAD and review of the CAD images both increased with the number of CAD marks (P < .0001). The interpreting radiologist was a significant variable for all interpretation times (P < .0001). Interpretation time with CAD increased by 3.2 seconds (95% confidence interval: 1.8, 4.6) for each calcification cluster marked and by 7.3 seconds (95% confidence interval: 4.7, 9.9) for each mass marked. CONCLUSION: The additional time required to review CAD images represented a 19% increase in the mean interpretation time without CAD. CAD requires a considerable time investment for digital screening mammography but may provide less measureable benefits in terms of confidence of the radiologists.
Authors: Berta M Geller; Andy Bogart; Patricia A Carney; Joann G Elmore; Barbara S Monsees; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Patricia A Carney; T Andrew Bogart; Berta M Geller; Sebastian Haneuse; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Robert Smith; Robert Rosenberg; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Tracy Onega; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Emily F Conant; Alicia Y Toledano; Senthil Periaswamy; Sergei V Fotin; Jonathan Go; Justin E Boatsman; Jeffrey W Hoffmeister Journal: Radiol Artif Intell Date: 2019-07-31
Authors: Abdul Rahman Diab; Bryan Haslam; Jiye G Kim; William Lotter; Giorgia Grisot; Eric Wu; Kevin Wu; Jorge Onieva Onieva; Yun Boyer; Jerrold L Boxerman; Meiyun Wang; Mack Bandler; Gopal R Vijayaraghavan; A Gregory Sorensen Journal: Nat Med Date: 2021-01-11 Impact factor: 87.241
Authors: Tayler M Schwartz; Stephen L Hillis; Radhika Sridharan; Olga Lukyanchenko; William Geiser; Gary J Whitman; Wei Wei; Tamara Miner Haygood Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2020-02-03