AJR InPractice
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by The, J. S.
Right arrow Articles by Holcomb, R. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by The, J. S.
Right arrow Articles by Holcomb, R. G.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Hotlight (NEW!)
Right arrow
What's Hotlight?
DOI:10.2214/AJR.07.3884
AJR 2009; 192:337-340
© American Roentgen Ray Society


Original Research

Detection of Breast Cancer with Full-Field Digital Mammography and Computer-Aided Detection

Juliette S. The1,2, Kathy J. Schilling1, Jeffrey W. Hoffmeister3, Euvondia Friedmann1, Ryan McGinnis1 and Richard G. Holcomb1

1 Center for Breast Care, Boca Raton Community Hospital, 690 Meadows Rd., Boca Raton, FL 33486.
2 Boca Radiology Group, Boca Raton, FL.
3 iCAD, Inc., Beavercreek, OH.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate computer-aided detection (CAD) performance with full-field digital mammography (FFDM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS. CAD (Second Look, version 7.2) was used to evaluate 123 cases of breast cancer detected with FFDM (Senographe DS). Retrospectively, CAD sensitivity was assessed using breast density, mammographic presentation, histopathology results, and lesion size. To determine the case-based false-positive rate, patients with four standard views per case were included in the study group. Eighteen unilateral mammography examinations with nonstandard views were excluded, resulting in a sample of 105 bilateral cases.

RESULTS. CAD detected 115 (94%) of 123 cancer cases: six of six (100%) in fatty breasts, 63 of 66 (95%) in breasts containing scattered fibroglandular densities, 43 of 46 (93%) in heterogeneously dense breasts, and three of five (60%) in extremely dense breasts. CAD detected 93% (41/44) of cancers manifesting as calcifications, 92% (57/62) as masses, and 100% (17/17) as mixed masses and calcifications. CAD detected 94% of the invasive ductal carcinomas (n = 63), 100% of the invasive lobular carcinomas (n = 7), 91% of the other invasive carcinomas (n = 11), and 93% of the ductal carcinomas in situ (n = 42). CAD sensitivity for cancers 1–10 mm (n = 55) was 89%; 11–20 mm (n = 37), 97%; 21–30 mm (n = 16), 100%; and larger than 30 mm (n = 15), 93%. The CAD false-positive rate was 2.3 marks per four-image case.

CONCLUSION. CAD with FFDM showed a high sensitivity in identifying cancers manifesting as calcifications and masses. Sensitivity was maintained in cancers with lower mammographic sensitivity, including invasive lobular carcinomas and small neoplasms (1–20 mm). CAD with FFDM should be effective in assisting radiologists with earlier detection of breast cancer. Future studies are needed to assess CAD accuracy in larger populations.

Keywords: breast cancer • computer-aided detection • computer-aided diagnosis • digital images • full-field digital mammography • screening mammography


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.