Radiology, Vol 207, 465-471, Copyright © 1998 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Automated detection of breast carcinomas not detected in a screening program

GM te Brake, N Karssemeijer and JH Hendriks
Department of Radiology, Radboud University Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

PURPOSE: To investigate the possibility of automated detection of early signs of cancer that were not detected in a breast cancer screening program. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A set of 75 mammograms (in 65 women) with subtle circumscribed masses, stellate lesions, and architectural distortions that were not detected in a screening program by two radiologists was assembled and extended with 142 normal mammograms (contralateral mammograms in the same 65 women). An automated system for the detection of circumscribed masses and stellate lesions was applied to this set. RESULTS: In 22 (34%) of 65 cases, an early sign of cancer was detected at a specificity of one false-positive finding per image. At a specificity of three false-positive findings per image, 39 (60%) of the cancers were detected. Of the tumors that were classified as screening errors, seven (50%) were found at a specificity of 0.5 false-positive finding per image. CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of cancers that were missed in a screening program, despite double reading, were found with this detection method at less than one false- positive finding per image.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				F. J. Gilbert, S. M. Astley, M. A. McGee, M. G. C. Gillan, C. R. M. Boggis, P. M. Griffiths, and S. W. Duffy Single Reading with Computer-aided Detection and Double Reading of Screening Mammograms in the United Kingdom National Breast Screening Program Radiology, October 1, 2006; 241(1): 47 - 53. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. E. Cupples, J. E. Cunningham, and J. C. Reynolds Impact of Computer-Aided Detection in a Regional Screening Mammography Program Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2005; 185(4): 944 - 950. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. A. Helvie, L. Hadjiiski, E. Makariou, H.-P. Chan, N. Petrick, B. Sahiner, S.-C. B. Lo, M. Freedman, D. Adler, J. Bailey, et al. Sensitivity of Noncommercial Computer-aided Detection System for Mammographic Breast Cancer Detection: Pilot Clinical Trial Radiology, April 1, 2004; 231(1): 208 - 214. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. Karssemeijer, J. D. M. Otten, A. L. M. Verbeek, J. H. Groenewoud, H. J. de Koning, J. H. C. L. Hendriks, and R. Holland Computer-aided Detection versus Independent Double Reading of Masses on Mammograms Radiology, April 1, 2003; 227(1): 192 - 200. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Eng Predicting the Presence of Acute Pulmonary Embolism: A Comparative Analysis of the Artificial Neural Network, Logistic Regression, and Threshold Models Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2002; 179(4): 869 - 874. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. W. Freer and M. J. Ulissey Screening Mammography with Computer-aided Detection: Prospective Study of 12,860 Patients in a Community Breast Center Radiology, September 1, 2001; 220(3): 781 - 786. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. J. Vyborny, T. Doi, K. F. O'Shaughnessy, H. M. Romsdahl, A. C. Schneider, and A. A. Stein Breast Cancer: Importance of Spiculation in Computer-aided Detection Radiology, June 1, 2000; 215(3): 703 - 707. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				B. Zheng, M. A. Ganott, C. A. Britton, C. M. Hakim, L. A. Hardesty, T. S. Chang, H. E. Rockette, and D. Gur Soft-Copy Mammographic Readings with Different Computer-assisted Detection Cuing Environments: Preliminary Findings Radiology, December 1, 2001; 221(3): 633 - 640. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]