Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography

Radiology

Volumn 215, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 554-562

  Warren Burhenne, Linda J ^a   Wood, Susan A ^b   D'Orsi, Carl J ^c   Feig, Stephen A ^d   Kopans, Daniel B ^e   O'Shaughnessy, Kathryn F ^b   Sickles, Edward A ^f   Tabar, Laszlo ^g   Vyborny, Carl J ^h   Castellino, Ronald A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^b R2 Technology Inc   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^d THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United States)

^e MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^g FALUN HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^h NONE

Author keywords

Breast neoplasms; Breast neoplasms, diagnosis; Cancer screening; Computers, diagnostic aid

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; CANCER SCREENING; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER SYSTEM; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; RECALL;

EID: 0005482571     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiology.215.2.r00ma15554     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Shapiro S. Screening: assessment of current studies. Cancer Suppl 1994; 74:231-238.
2. Feig S. Increased benefit from shorter screening mammography intervals for women ages 40-49 years. Cancer 1997; 80:2035-2039.
3. Feig S, D'Orsi C, Hendrick R, et al. American College of Radiology guidelines for breast cancer screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 171:29-33.
4. Leiten A, Dodd G, Costanza M, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of breast cancer: update 1997. CA Cancer J Clin 1997; 47:150-153.
5. Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Chen HH, et al. Efficacy of breast cancer screening by age: new results from the Swedish two-county trial. Cancer 1995; 75:2507-2517.
6. Sickles E. Quality assurance: how to audit your own mammography practice. Radiol Clin North Am 1992; 30:265-275.
7. Ikeda D, Andersson I, Wattsgard C, Janzon L, Linell F. Interval carcinomas in the Malmo mammographic screening trial: radiographic appearance and prognostic considerations. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992; 159:287-294.
8. Duncan A, Wallis M. Classifying interval cancers. Clin Radiol 1995; 50:774-777.
9. van Dijck J, Verbeek A, Hendriks J, Holland R. The current detectability of breast cancer in a mammographic screening program: a review of the previous mammograms of interval and screen-detected cancers. Cancer 1993; 72:1933-1938.
10. Burhenne H, Burhenne L, Goldberg F, et al. Interval breast cancers in the screening mammography program of British Columbia: analysis and classification. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994; 162:1067-1071.
11. Harvey J, Fajardo L, Innis C. Previous mammograms in patients with impalpable breast carcinoma: retrospective vs blinded interpretation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1993; 161:1167-1172.
12. Peeters P, Verbeek A, Hendricks J, van Bon M. Screening for breast cancer in Nijmegen: report on 6 screening rounds 1975-1986. Int J Cancer 1989; 43:226-230.
13. Miller A, Baines C, To T, Wall C. Canadian national breast screening study. II. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 50-59 years. Can Med Assoc J 1992; 147:1477-1488.
14. Miller A, Baines C, To T, Wall C. Canadian national breast cancer screening study. I. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 40 to 49 years. Can Med Assoc J 1993; 147:1459-1476.
15. Baines C, Miller A, Bassett A. Physical examination: its role as a single screening modality in the Canadian national breast screening study. Cancer 1989; 63:1816-1822.
16. Baines C, Miller A, Kopans D, et al. Canadian National Breast Screening Study: assessment of technical quality by external review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1990; 155:743-747.
17. van Rosen A, Frisell J, Glas U, et al. Non-palpable invasive breast carcinomas from the Stockholm screening project. Acta Oncol 1989; 28:23-27.
18. Lidbrink E, Tornberg S, Azavedo E, et al. The general mammography screening program in Stockholm: organization and first round results. Acta Oncol 1994; 33:353-358.
19. Thurfjell E, Lernevall K, Taube A. Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program. Radiology 1994; 191:241-244.
20. Anttinen I, Pamilo M, Soiva M, Roiha M. Double reading of mammography screening films - one radiologist or two? Clin Radiol 1993; 48:414-421.
21. Beam C, Sullivan D, Layde P. Effect of human variability on independent double reading in screening mammography. Acad Radiol 1996; 3:891-897.
22. Ciatto S, Del Turco M, Morrone D, et al. Independent double reading of screening mammograms. J Med Screen 1995; 2:99-101.
23. Warren RM, Duffy SW. Comparison of single reading with double reading of mammograms, and change in effectiveness with experience. Br J Radiol 1995; 68:958-962.
24. Brown J, Bryan S, Warren R. Mammography screening: an incremental cost effectiveness analysis of double versus single reading of mammograms. BMJ 1996; 312:809-812.
25. Doi K, Giger M, MacMahon H, et al. Computer-aided diagnosis: development of automated approaches for quantitative analysis of radiographic images. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 1992; 13:140-152.
26. Vyborny CJ, Giger ML. Computer vision and artificial intelligence in mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994; 162:699-708.
27. Vyborny CJ. Can computers help radiologists read mammograms? Radiology 1994; 191:315-317.
28. Winsberg F, Elkin M, Macy J, Bordaz V, Weymouth W. Detection of radiographic abnormalities in mammograms by means of optical scanning and computer analysis. Radiology 1967; 89:211-215.
29. Hendrick R. Quality assurance in mammography: accreditation, legislation, and compliance with quality assurance standards. Radiol Clin North Am 1992; 30:243-255.
30. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, et al. Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. J Nat Cancer Inst 1998; 90:1801-1809.
31. Bird R, Wallace T, Yankaskas B. Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography. Radiology 1992; 184:613-617.
32. Nystrom L, Rutqvist L, Wall S, et al. Breast cancer screening with mammography: overview of Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 1993; 341:973-978.
33. Tabar L, Fagerberg C, Gad A, et al. Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography: randomized trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Lancet 1985; 1:829-832.
34. Tabar L, Fagerberg C, Duffy S, Day N. The Swedish two-county trial of mammographic screening for breast cancer: recent results and calculation of benefit. J Epidemiol Community Health 1989; 43:107-114.
35. Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Duffy S, Day N, Gad A, Grontoft O. Update of the Swedish two-county program of mammography screening for breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 1992; 30:187-210.
36. Tabar L, Fagerberg C, Day N, Duffy S. The Swedish two-county trial of mammographic screening of breast cancer: recent results on mortality and tumour characteristics. Pathol Biol 1992; 39:846.
37. Holmberg L, Tabar L, Adami H, Bergstrom R. Survival in breast cancer diagnosed between breast cancer screening examinations. Lancet 1986; 2:27-30.
38. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles E, Ernster V. Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA 1996; 276:33-38.
39. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles E, Ernster V. Likelihood ratios for modern screening mammography. JAMA 1996; 276:39-43.
40. Mushlin A, Kouides R, Shapiro D. Estimating the accuracy of screening mammography: a meta-analysis. Am J Prev Med 1998; 14:143-153.