| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Breast Imaging |
1 From the Radiology Department, St George's Hospital, Blackshaw Rd, London SW17 0QT, England (L.A.L.K., R.M.G.); and Royal Free and University College Medical School, London, England (P.T.). Received August 3, 2004; revision requested October 8; revision received November 22; accepted December 27. Supported by the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. Address correspondence to R.M.G. (e-mail: rosalind.givenwilson{at}stgeorges.nhs.uk).
PURPOSE: To evaluate prospectively the recall and cancer detection rates with and without computer-aided detection (CAD) in the United Kingdom National Health Service Breast Screening Programme.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study had appropriate ethics committee approval. Informed consent was not required; however, patients were informed that their mammograms might be used in research efforts, and all patients agreed to participate. Mammograms obtained in 6111 women (mean age, 58.4 years) undergoing routine screening every 3 years were analyzed with a CAD system. Mammograms were independently double read. Twelve readers participated. Readers recorded an initial evaluation, viewed the CAD prompts, and recorded a final evaluation. Recall to assessment was decided after arbitration. Sensitivities were calculated for single reading, single reading with CAD, and double reading, as a proportion of the total number of cancers detected by using double reading with CAD.
RESULTS: A total of 62 cancers were detected in 61 women. CAD prompted 51 (84%) of 61 radiographically detected cancers. Of 12 cancers missed on single reading, nine were correctly prompted; however, seven prompts were overruled by the reader. Sensitivity of single reading was 90.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 83.0%, 95.0%), single reading with CAD was 91.5% (95% CI: 85.0%, 96.0%), and double reading without CAD was 98.4% (95% CI: 91.0%, 100%). Cancer detection rate was 1%. Recall to assessment rate was 6.1%, with an increase of 5.8% because of CAD. Average time required, per reader, to read a case was 25 seconds without CAD and 45 seconds with CAD.
CONCLUSION: CAD increases sensitivity of single reading by 1.3%, whereas double reading increases sensitivity by 8.2%.
© RSNA, 2005
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. Gromet Comparison of Computer-Aided Detection to Double Reading of Screening Mammograms: Review of 231,221 Mammograms Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2008; 190(4): 854 - 859. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F. Li, R. Engelmann, C. E. Metz, K. Doi, and H. MacMahon Lung Cancers Missed on Chest Radiographs: Results Obtained with a Commercial Computer-aided Detection Program Radiology, January 1, 2008; 246(1): 273 - 280. [Abstract] [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. J. Fenton, S. H. Taplin, P. A. Carney, L. Abraham, E. A. Sickles, C. D'Orsi, E. A. Berns, G. Cutter, R. E. Hendrick, W. E. Barlow, et al. Influence of Computer-Aided Detection on Performance of Screening Mammography N. Engl. J. Med., April 5, 2007; 356(14): 1399 - 1409. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| RADIOLOGY | RADIOGRAPHICS | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |
