OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to perform a prospective assessment of the impact of a CAD system in a screen-film mammography screening program during a period of 3 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our study was carried out on a population of 21,855 asymptomatic women (45-65 years). Mammograms were processed in a CAD system and independently interpreted by one of six radiologists. We analyzed the following parameters: sensitivity of radiologist's interpretation (without and with CAD), detection increase, recall rate and positive predictive value of biopsy, CAD's marks, radiologist's false negatives and comparative analysis of carcinomas detected and non-detected by CAD. RESULTS: Detection rate was 4.3‰. CAD supposed an increase of 0.1‰ in detection rate and 1% in the total number of cases (p<0.005). The impact on recall rate was not significant (0.4%) and PPV of percutaneous biopsy was unchanged by CAD (20.23%). CAD's marks were 2.7 per case and 0.7 per view. Radiologist's false negatives were 13 lesions which were initially considered as CAD's false positives. CONCLUSIONS: CAD supposed a significant increase in detection, without modifications in recall rates and PPV of biopsy. However, better results could have been achieved if radiologists had considered actionable those cases marked by CAD but initially misinterpreted.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to perform a prospective assessment of the impact of a CAD system in a screen-film mammography screening program during a period of 3 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our study was carried out on a population of 21,855 asymptomatic women (45-65 years). Mammograms were processed in a CAD system and independently interpreted by one of six radiologists. We analyzed the following parameters: sensitivity of radiologist's interpretation (without and with CAD), detection increase, recall rate and positive predictive value of biopsy, CAD's marks, radiologist's false negatives and comparative analysis of carcinomas detected and non-detected by CAD. RESULTS: Detection rate was 4.3‰. CAD supposed an increase of 0.1‰ in detection rate and 1% in the total number of cases (p<0.005). The impact on recall rate was not significant (0.4%) and PPV of percutaneous biopsy was unchanged by CAD (20.23%). CAD's marks were 2.7 per case and 0.7 per view. Radiologist's false negatives were 13 lesions which were initially considered as CAD's false positives. CONCLUSIONS:CAD supposed a significant increase in detection, without modifications in recall rates and PPV of biopsy. However, better results could have been achieved if radiologists had considered actionable those cases marked by CAD but initially misinterpreted.
Authors: Baptiste Vasey; Stephan Ursprung; Benjamin Beddoe; Elliott H Taylor; Neale Marlow; Nicole Bilbro; Peter Watkinson; Peter McCulloch Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-03-01
Authors: Afsaneh Jalalian; Syamsiah Mashohor; Rozi Mahmud; Babak Karasfi; M Iqbal B Saripan; Abdul Rahman B Ramli Journal: EXCLI J Date: 2017-02-20 Impact factor: 4.068