| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Original Research |
1 Both authors: Private practice, 1525 State St., Suite 102, Santa Barbara, CA 93101.
OBJECTIVE. This study prospectively evaluated a computer-aided detection (CAD) device used with diagnostic and screening mammography by assessing cancers detected; tumor sizes, histology, and stage; positive predictive value (PPV) of biopsy recommendation; and recall rates before and after CAD introduction.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Interpretations of 9,520 consecutive mammograms were recorded without and then with CAD for a 28-month period. Cancer detections based on initial radiologist review and additional detections based on CAD findings were noted. Recall rates, tumor size and histology, and PPV of biopsy recommendation before and after the introduction of CAD were compared.
RESULTS. Cancers detected only with CAD assistance were 9.6% of all cancers (10 of 104); screening-detected cancers increased 13.3% with CAD assistance (four in addition to 30 screening-detected cancers). The 95% one-sided confidence boundary using binomial distribution is consistent with at least 5.3% for all cancers and 5.1% for nonpalpable cancers. The greatest impact was on ductal carcinoma in situ, for which CAD increased cancer detection by 14.2% (three added to 21). Similar percentages of cancers were detected only with CAD assistance in both screening (11.4%; 4 of 35) and diagnostic (9.5%; six of 63) studies. Additional cancers were detected using CAD in patients with implants and previous lumpectomy. The additional cancers detected with CAD were smaller (p = 0.01 for all cancers, p = 0.03 for nonpalpable invasive cancer). The screening recall rate increased from 6.2% to 7.8% after CAD, with a decrease in the biopsy rate and a nonsignificant increase in the biopsy PPV from 21.9% to 26.3%.
CONCLUSION. CAD resulted in detection of more cancers in screening and diagnostic patients, with an increased recall rate but no deterioration in PPV of biopsy. Additional cancers detected were significantly smaller.
Keywords: biopsy • breast • breast cancer • mammography • screening
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  References J. ICRU, December 1, 2009; 9(2): 89 - 104. [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. L. Birdwell The Preponderance of Evidence Supports Computer-aided Detection for Screening Mammography Radiology, October 1, 2009; 253(1): 9 - 16. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. E. Philpotts Can Computer-aided Detection Be Detrimental to Mammographic Interpretation? Radiology, October 1, 2009; 253(1): 17 - 22. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. M. Nishikawa and L. L. Pesce Computer-aided Detection Evaluation Methods Are Not Created Equal Radiology, June 1, 2009; 251(3): 634 - 636. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. S. Burnside, J. Davis, J. Chhatwal, O. Alagoz, M. J. Lindstrom, B. M. Geller, B. Littenberg, K. A. Shaffer, C. E. Kahn Jr, and C. D. Page Probabilistic Computer Model Developed from Clinical Data in National Mammography Database Format to Classify Mammographic Findings Radiology, June 1, 2009; 251(3): 663 - 672. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Chhatwal, O. Alagoz, M. J. Lindstrom, C. E. Kahn Jr., K. A. Shaffer, and E. S. Burnside A Logistic Regression Model Based on the National Mammography Database Format to Aid Breast Cancer Diagnosis Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2009; 192(4): 1117 - 1127. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F. J. Gilbert, S. M. Astley, M. G.C. Gillan, O. F. Agbaje, M. G. Wallis, J. James, C. R.M. Boggis, S. W. Duffy, and the CADET II Group Single Reading with Computer-Aided Detection for Screening Mammography N. Engl. J. Med., October 16, 2008; 359(16): 1675 - 1684. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Gur Imaging Technology and Practice Assessment Studies: Importance of the Baseline or Reference Performance Level Radiology, April 1, 2008; 247(1): 8 - 11. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. F. Brem Blinded Comparison of Computer-Aided Detection with Human Second Reading in Screening Mammography: The Importance of the Question and the Critical Numbers Game Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2007; 189(5): 1142 - 1144. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Ciatto, N. Houssami, D. Gur, R. M. Nishikawa, R. A. Schmidt, C. E. Metz, J. F. Ruiz, S. A. Feig, R. L. Birdwell, M. N. Linver, et al. Computer-aided screening mammography. N. Engl. J. Med., July 5, 2007; 357(1): 83 - 84. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Berlin Accuracy of Diagnostic Procedures: Has It Improved Over the Past Five Decades? Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2007; 188(5): 1173 - 1178. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. F. Brem Clinical Versus Research Approach to Breast Cancer Detection with CAD: Where Are We Now? Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2007; 188(1): 234 - 235. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
