BACKGROUND: Computer-aided detection (CAD) is applied during screening mammography for millions of US women annually, although it is uncertain whether CAD improves breast cancer detection when used by community radiologists. METHODS: We investigated the association between CAD use during film-screen screening mammography and specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value, cancer detection rates, and prognostic characteristics of breast cancers (stage, size, and node involvement). Records from 684 956 women who received more than 1.6 million film-screen mammograms at Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium facilities in seven states in the United States from 1998 to 2006 were analyzed. We used random-effects logistic regression to estimate associations between CAD and specificity (true-negative examinations among women without breast cancer), sensitivity (true-positive examinations among women with breast cancer diagnosed within 1 year of mammography), and positive predictive value (breast cancer diagnosed after positive mammograms) while adjusting for mammography registry, patient age, time since previous mammography, breast density, use of hormone replacement therapy, and year of examination (1998-2002 vs 2003-2006). All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Of 90 total facilities, 25 (27.8%) adopted CAD and used it for an average of 27.5 study months. In adjusted analyses, CAD use was associated with statistically significantly lower specificity (OR = 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.85 to 0.89, P < .001) and positive predictive value (OR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.80 to 0.99, P = .03). A non-statistically significant increase in overall sensitivity with CAD (OR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.84 to 1.33, P = .62) was attributed to increased sensitivity for ductal carcinoma in situ (OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 0.83 to 2.91; P = .17), although sensitivity for invasive cancer was similar with or without CAD (OR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.75 to 1.24; P = .77). CAD was not associated with higher breast cancer detection rates or more favorable stage, size, or lymph node status of invasive breast cancer. CONCLUSION: CAD use during film-screen screening mammography in the United States is associated with decreased specificity but not with improvement in the detection rate or prognostic characteristics of invasive breast cancer.
BACKGROUND: Computer-aided detection (CAD) is applied during screening mammography for millions of US women annually, although it is uncertain whether CAD improves breast cancer detection when used by community radiologists. METHODS: We investigated the association between CAD use during film-screen screening mammography and specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value, cancer detection rates, and prognostic characteristics of breast cancers (stage, size, and node involvement). Records from 684 956 women who received more than 1.6 million film-screen mammograms at Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium facilities in seven states in the United States from 1998 to 2006 were analyzed. We used random-effects logistic regression to estimate associations between CAD and specificity (true-negative examinations among women without breast cancer), sensitivity (true-positive examinations among women with breast cancer diagnosed within 1 year of mammography), and positive predictive value (breast cancer diagnosed after positive mammograms) while adjusting for mammography registry, patient age, time since previous mammography, breast density, use of hormone replacement therapy, and year of examination (1998-2002 vs 2003-2006). All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Of 90 total facilities, 25 (27.8%) adopted CAD and used it for an average of 27.5 study months. In adjusted analyses, CAD use was associated with statistically significantly lower specificity (OR = 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.85 to 0.89, P < .001) and positive predictive value (OR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.80 to 0.99, P = .03). A non-statistically significant increase in overall sensitivity with CAD (OR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.84 to 1.33, P = .62) was attributed to increased sensitivity for ductal carcinoma in situ (OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 0.83 to 2.91; P = .17), although sensitivity for invasive cancer was similar with or without CAD (OR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.75 to 1.24; P = .77). CAD was not associated with higher breast cancer detection rates or more favorable stage, size, or lymph node status of invasive breast cancer. CONCLUSION: CAD use during film-screen screening mammography in the United States is associated with decreased specificity but not with improvement in the detection rate or prognostic characteristics of invasive breast cancer.
Authors: Vijay M Rao; David C Levin; Laurence Parker; Barbara Cavanaugh; Andrea J Frangos; Jonathan H Sunshine Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Rowan T Chlebowski; Lewis H Kuller; Ross L Prentice; Marcia L Stefanick; JoAnn E Manson; Margery Gass; Aaron K Aragaki; Judith K Ockene; Dorothy S Lane; Gloria E Sarto; Aleksandar Rajkovic; Robert Schenken; Susan L Hendrix; Peter M Ravdin; Thomas E Rohan; Shagufta Yasmeen; Garnet Anderson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-02-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Trafton Drew; Avi M Aizenman; Matthew B Thompson; Mark D Kovacs; Michael Trambert; Murray A Reicher; Jeremy M Wolfe Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2015-10-12
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
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