OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of computer-aided detection (CAD) systems on the performance of radiologists with digital mammograms acquired during the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Only those DMIST cases with proven cancer status by biopsy or 1-year follow-up that had available digital images were included in this multireader, multicase ROC study. Two commercially available CAD systems for digital mammography were used: iCAD SecondLook, version 1.4; and R2 ImageChecker Cenova, version 1.0. Fourteen radiologists interpreted, without and with CAD, a set of 300 cases (150 cancer, 150 benign or normal) on the iCAD SecondLook system, and 15 radiologists interpreted a different set of 300 cases (150 cancer, 150 benign or normal) on the R2 ImageChecker Cenova system. RESULTS: The average AUC was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.66-0.76) without and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.67-0.77) with the iCAD system (p = 0.07). Similarly, the average AUC was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.66-0.76) without and 0.72 (95% CI 0.67-0.77) with the R2 system (p = 0.08). Sensitivity and specificity differences without and with CAD for both systems also were not significant. CONCLUSION: Radiologists in our studies rarely changed their diagnostic decisions after the addition of CAD. The application of CAD had no statistically significant effect on radiologist AUC, sensitivity, or specificity performance with digital mammograms from DMIST.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of computer-aided detection (CAD) systems on the performance of radiologists with digital mammograms acquired during the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Only those DMIST cases with proven cancer status by biopsy or 1-year follow-up that had available digital images were included in this multireader, multicase ROC study. Two commercially available CAD systems for digital mammography were used: iCAD SecondLook, version 1.4; and R2 ImageChecker Cenova, version 1.0. Fourteen radiologists interpreted, without and with CAD, a set of 300 cases (150 cancer, 150 benign or normal) on the iCAD SecondLook system, and 15 radiologists interpreted a different set of 300 cases (150 cancer, 150 benign or normal) on the R2 ImageChecker Cenova system. RESULTS: The average AUC was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.66-0.76) without and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.67-0.77) with the iCAD system (p = 0.07). Similarly, the average AUC was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.66-0.76) without and 0.72 (95% CI 0.67-0.77) with the R2 system (p = 0.08). Sensitivity and specificity differences without and with CAD for both systems also were not significant. CONCLUSION: Radiologists in our studies rarely changed their diagnostic decisions after the addition of CAD. The application of CAD had no statistically significant effect on radiologist AUC, sensitivity, or specificity performance with digital mammograms from DMIST.
Authors: Etta D Pisano; Constantine A Gatsonis; Martin J Yaffe; R Edward Hendrick; Anna N A Tosteson; Dennis G Fryback; Lawrence W Bassett; Janet K Baum; Emily F Conant; Roberta A Jong; Murray Rebner; Carl J D'Orsi Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-06-16 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Robert M Nishikawa; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Constantine Gatsonis; Etta D Pisano; Elodia B Cole; Helga S Marques; Carl J D'Orsi; Dione M Farria; Kalpana M Kanal; Mary C Mahoney; Murray Rebner; Melinda J Staiger Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: R Edward Hendrick; Elodia B Cole; Etta D Pisano; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Helga Marques; Michael A Cohen; Roberta A Jong; Gordon E Mawdsley; Kalpana M Kanal; Carl J D'Orsi; Murray Rebner; Constantine Gatsonis Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Fiona J Gilbert; Susan M Astley; Magnus A McGee; Maureen G C Gillan; Caroline R M Boggis; Pamela M Griffiths; Stephen W Duffy Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 11.105
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
Authors: Elodia B Cole; Zheng Zhang; Helga S Marques; Robert M Nishikawa; R Edward Hendrick; Martin J Yaffe; Wittaya Padungchaichote; Cherie Kuzmiak; Jatuporn Chayakulkheeree; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Janet Baum; Constantine Gatsonis; Etta Pisano Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Jaya S Khushalani; Donatus U Ekwueme; Thomas B Richards; Susan A Sabatino; Gery P Guy; Yuanhui Zhang; Florence Tangka Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2019-10-15 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Karla K Evans; Tamara Miner Haygood; Julie Cooper; Anne-Marie Culpan; Jeremy M Wolfe Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2016-08-29 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Constance D Lehman; Robert D Wellman; Diana S M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Anna N A Tosteson; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Ahmed Hosny; Chintan Parmar; John Quackenbush; Lawrence H Schwartz; Hugo J W L Aerts Journal: Nat Rev Cancer Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 60.716
Authors: Alyssa T Watanabe; Vivian Lim; Hoanh X Vu; Richard Chim; Eric Weise; Jenna Liu; William G Bradley; Christopher E Comstock Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 4.056