HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 2392042121v1 239/2/375    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Morton, M. J. Articles by Amrami, K. K. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Morton, M. J. Articles by Amrami, K. K.

Screening Mammograms: Interpretation with Computer-aided Detection—Prospective Evaluation¹

¹ From the Divisions of Breast Imaging and Intervention (M.J.M., D.H.W., K.R.B., K.K.A.) and Biostatistics (J.N.M.), Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905. Received December 14, 2004; revision requested February 4, 2005; revision received May 12; accepted June 13; final version accepted July 1. Address correspondence to M.J.M. (e-mail: morton.marilyn{at}mayo.edu).

Purpose: To prospectively determine the effect of a commercially available computer-aided detection (CAD) system on interpretations of screening mammograms.

Materials and Methods: Institutional review board approval was granted; informed consent and HIPAA compliance were waived. A total of 21 349 screening mammograms obtained in 18 096 women were interpreted first without and then with review of CAD images to determine the effect of CAD analysis on the screening breast cancer detection rate, recall rate, and positive predictive value (PPV) for biopsy. The percentage of total cancers detected by the radiologists independent of CAD and the percentage correctly marked by the CAD system were determined.

Results: On the basis of pre-CAD interpretations, 2101 patients were recalled for diagnostic evaluation, 256 biopsies were performed, and 105 breast cancers were diagnosed. The breast cancer detection rate per 1000 screening mammograms was 4.92 (105 of 21 349 mammograms), the recall rate was 9.84% (2101 of 21 349 mammograms), and the PPV for biopsy was 41.0% (105 of 256 biopsies). After CAD image review, 199 additional patients were recalled, 21 additional biopsies were performed, and eight additional cancers were detected. The effect was a 7.62% (eight of 105) increase in the number of breast cancers detected, an increase in the recall rate to 10.77% (2300 of 21 349 mammograms), and a slight decrease in the PPV to 40.8% (113 of 277 biopsies). Radiologists detected 92.9% (105 of 113 cancers) of the total cancers, and CAD correctly marked 76.1% (86 of 113 cancers).

Conclusion: The use of CAD improved the detection of breast cancer, with an acceptable increase in the recall rate and a minimal increase in the number of biopsies with benign results.

© RSNA, 2006

This article has been cited by other articles:

				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]

				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]

				D. Georgian-Smith, R. H. Moore, E. Halpern, E. D. Yeh, E. A. Rafferty, H. A. D'Alessandro, M. Staffa, D. A. Hall, K. A. McCarthy, and D. B. Kopans Blinded Comparison of Computer-Aided Detection with Human Second Reading in Screening Mammography Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2007; 189(5): 1135 - 1141. [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]

				R. L. Ellis, A. A. Meade, M. A. Mathiason, K. M. Willison, and W. Logan-Young Evaluation of Computer-aided Detection Systems in the Detection of Small Invasive Breast Carcinoma Radiology, October 1, 2007; 245(1): 88 - 94. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Pruthi, K. R. Brandt, A. C. Degnim, M. P. Goetz, E. A. Perez, C. A. Reynolds, P. J. Schomberg, G. K. Dy, and J. N. Ingle A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Management of Breast Cancer, Part 1: Prevention and Diagnosis Mayo Clin. Proc., August 1, 2007; 82(8): 999 - 1012. [Abstract] [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]

				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]