OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy and interpretation times of breast MRI with and without use of a computer-aided detection (CAD) system by novice and experienced readers. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A reader study was undertaken with 20 radiologists, nine experienced and 11 novice. Each radiologist participated in two reading sessions spaced 6 months apart that consisted of 70 cases (27 benign, 43 malignant), read with and without CAD assistance. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, and overall accuracy as measured by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were reported for each radiologist. Accuracy comparisons across use of CAD and experience level were examined. Time to interpret and report on each case was recorded. RESULTS: CAD improved sensitivity for both experienced (AUC, 0.91 vs 0.84; 95% CI on the difference, 0.04, 0.11) and novice readers (AUC, 0.83 vs 0.77; 95% CI on the difference, 0.01, 0.10). The increase in sensitivity was statistically higher for experienced readers (p = 0.01). Diagnostic accuracy, measured by AUC, for novices without CAD was 0.77, for novices with CAD was 0.79, for experienced readers without CAD was 0.80, and for experienced readers with CAD was 0.83. An upward trend was noticed, but the differences were not statistically significant. There were no significant differences in interpretation times. CONCLUSION: MRI sensitivity improved with CAD for both experienced readers and novices with no overall increase in time to evaluate cases. However, overall accuracy was not significantly improved. As the use of breast MRI with CAD increases, more attention to the potential contributions of CAD to the diagnostic accuracy of MRI is needed.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy and interpretation times of breast MRI with and without use of a computer-aided detection (CAD) system by novice and experienced readers. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A reader study was undertaken with 20 radiologists, nine experienced and 11 novice. Each radiologist participated in two reading sessions spaced 6 months apart that consisted of 70 cases (27 benign, 43 malignant), read with and without CAD assistance. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, and overall accuracy as measured by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were reported for each radiologist. Accuracy comparisons across use of CAD and experience level were examined. Time to interpret and report on each case was recorded. RESULTS:CAD improved sensitivity for both experienced (AUC, 0.91 vs 0.84; 95% CI on the difference, 0.04, 0.11) and novice readers (AUC, 0.83 vs 0.77; 95% CI on the difference, 0.01, 0.10). The increase in sensitivity was statistically higher for experienced readers (p = 0.01). Diagnostic accuracy, measured by AUC, for novices without CAD was 0.77, for novices with CAD was 0.79, for experienced readers without CAD was 0.80, and for experienced readers with CAD was 0.83. An upward trend was noticed, but the differences were not statistically significant. There were no significant differences in interpretation times. CONCLUSION: MRI sensitivity improved with CAD for both experienced readers and novices with no overall increase in time to evaluate cases. However, overall accuracy was not significantly improved. As the use of breast MRI with CAD increases, more attention to the potential contributions of CAD to the diagnostic accuracy of MRI is needed.
Authors: Lilian C Wang; Wendy B DeMartini; Savannah C Partridge; Sue Peacock; Constance D Lehman Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Mitchell D Schnall; Jeffery Blume; David A Bluemke; Gia A Deangelis; Nanette Debruhl; Steven Harms; Sylvia H Heywang-Köbrunner; Nola Hylton; Christiane K Kuhl; Etta D Pisano; Petrina Causer; Stuart J Schnitt; Stanley F Smazal; Carol B Stelling; Constance Lehman; Paul T Weatherall; Constantine A Gatsonis Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2005-10-01 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Constance D Lehman; Jeffrey D Blume; Paul Weatherall; David Thickman; Nola Hylton; Ellen Warner; Etta Pisano; Stuart J Schnitt; Constantine Gatsonis; Mitchell Schnall; Gia A DeAngelis; Paul Stomper; Eric L Rosen; Michael O'Loughlin; Steven Harms; David A Bluemke Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-05-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Steven G Lee; Susan G Orel; Irene J Woo; Eva Cruz-Jove; Mary E Putt; Lawrence J Solin; Brian J Czerniecki; Mitchell D Schnall Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-01-31 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Constance D Lehman; Constantine Gatsonis; Christiane K Kuhl; R Edward Hendrick; Etta D Pisano; Lucy Hanna; Sue Peacock; Stanley F Smazal; Daniel D Maki; Thomas B Julian; Elizabeth R DePeri; David A Bluemke; Mitchell D Schnall Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-03-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Elizabeth J Sutton; Brittany Z Dashevsky; Jung Hun Oh; Harini Veeraraghavan; Aditya P Apte; Sunitha B Thakur; Elizabeth A Morris; Joseph O Deasy Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Jacob E D Levman; Cristina Gallego-Ortiz; Ellen Warner; Petrina Causer; Anne L Martel Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Marion E Scoggins; Banu K Arun; Rosalind P Candelaria; Mark J Dryden; Wei Wei; Jong Bum Son; Jingfei Ma; Basak E Dogan Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2020-07-02 Impact factor: 2.546