Literature DB >> 23131867

Role of computer-aided detection in very small screening detected invasive breast cancers.

Xavier Bargalló1, Martín Velasco, Gorane Santamaría, Montse Del Amo, Pedro Arguis, Sonia Sánchez Gómez.   

Abstract

This study aims to assess computer-aided detection (CAD) performance with full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in very small (equal to or less than 1 cm) invasive breast cancers. Sixty-eight invasive breast cancers less than or equal to 1 cm were retrospectively studied. All cases were detected with FFDM in women aged 49-69 years from our breast cancer screening program. Radiological characteristics of lesions following BI-RADS descriptors were recorded and compared with CAD sensitivity. Age, size, BI-RADS classification, breast density type, histological type of the neoplasm, and role of the CAD were also assessed. Per-study specificity and mass false-positive rate were determined by using 100 normal consecutive studies. Thirty-seven (54.4 %) masses, 17 (25 %) calcifications, 6 (8.8 %) masses with calcifications, 7 (10.3 %) architectural distortions, and 1 asymmetry (1.5 %) were found. CAD showed an overall sensitivity of 86.7 % (masses, 86.5 %; calcifications, 100 %; masses with calcifications, 100 %; and architectural distortion, 57.14 %), CAD failed to detect 9 out of 68 cases: 5 of 37 masses, 3 of 7 architectural distortions, and 1 of 1 asymmetry. Fifteen out of 37 masses were hyperdense, and all of them were detected by CAD. No association was seen among mass morphology or margins and detectability. Per-study specificity and CAD false-positive rate was 26 % and 1.76 false marks per study. In conclusion, CAD shows a high sensitivity and a low specificity. Lesion size, histology, and breast density do not influence sensitivity. Mammographic features, mass density, and thickness of the spicules in architectural distortions do influence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23131867      PMCID: PMC3649063          DOI: 10.1007/s10278-012-9550-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Digit Imaging        ISSN: 0897-1889            Impact factor:   4.056


  25 in total

1.  Prospective assessment of computer-aided detection in interpretation of screening mammography.

Authors:  Justin M Ko; Michael J Nicholas; Jeffrey B Mendel; Priscilla J Slanetz
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 2.  CAD for mammography: the technique, results, current role and further developments.

Authors:  Ansgar Malich; Dorothee R Fischer; Joachim Böttcher
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-01-17       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Computer-aided detection with screening mammography in a university hospital setting.

Authors:  Robyn L Birdwell; Parul Bandodkar; Debra M Ikeda
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Effect of computer-aided detection on independent double reading of paired screen-film and full-field digital screening mammograms.

Authors:  Per Skaane; Ashwini Kshirsagar; Sandra Stapleton; Kari Young; Ronald A Castellino
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  Screening mammograms: interpretation with computer-aided detection--prospective evaluation.

Authors:  Marilyn J Morton; Dana H Whaley; Kathleen R Brandt; Kimberly K Amrami
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2006-03-28       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Computer-aided detection in the United Kingdom National Breast Screening Programme: prospective study.

Authors:  Lisanne A L Khoo; Paul Taylor; Rosalind M Given-Wilson
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-09-16       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Impact of breast density on computer-aided detection for breast cancer.

Authors:  Rachel F Brem; Jeffrey W Hoffmeister; Jocelyn A Rapelyea; Gilat Zisman; Kevin Mohtashemi; Guarav Jindal; Martin P Disimio; Steven K Rogers
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Assessing the impact of CAD on the sensitivity and specificity of film readers.

Authors:  P Taylor; R Given-Wilson; J Champness; H W W Potts; K Johnston
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 2.350

10.  Screening mammography-detected cancers: sensitivity of a computer-aided detection system applied to full-field digital mammograms.

Authors:  Sang Kyu Yang; Woo Kyung Moon; Nariya Cho; Jeong Seon Park; Joo Hee Cha; Sun Mi Kim; Seung Ja Kim; Jung-Gi Im
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-05-16       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  1 in total

1.  Interpretation time for screening mammography as a function of the number of computer-aided detection marks.

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
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.