Improvement in sensitivity of screening mammography with computer-aided detection: A multiinstitutional trial

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 181, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 687-693

  Brem, Rachel F ^a   Baum, Janet ^b   Lechner, Mary ^c   Kaplan, Stuart ^d   Souders, Stuart ^e   Naul, L Gill ^f   Hoffmeister, Jeff ^g  

^a GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c PARK NICOLLET CLINIC   (United States)

^d Strax Institute   (United States)

^e KAISER PERMANENTE MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^f SCOTT AND WHITE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^g CADx Systems   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

EID: 0041508866     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/ajr.181.3.1810687     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Thomas AG, Jemal A, Thun MJ. Breast cancer facts & figures 2001-2002. Atlanta: American Cancer Society, 2001:3
2. Feuer EJ, Wun LM, Boring CC, et al. The lifetime risk of developing breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85:892-897
3. Gotzsche PC, Olsen O. Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable? Lancet 2000;355:129-134
4. Breast Cancer (PDQ) Web Site. Available at: http:// cancer.gov/cancerinfo/pdq/screening/breast/ healthprofessional/. Accessed October 16, 2002
5. Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, et al. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:347-360
6. Vainio H, Bianchini F. Breast cancer screening, vol. 7. Lyon, France: IARC Press, 2002:248
7. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of the factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 2002;225:165-175
8. Yankaskas BC, Cleveland RJ, Schell MJ, Kozar R. Association of recall rates with sensitivity and positive predictive values of screening mammography. AJR 2001;177:543-549
9. Kerlikowske K, Carney PA, Geller B, et al. Performance of screening mammography among women with and without a first-degree relative with breast cancer. Ann Intern Med 2000;133:855-863
10. Bird RE, Wallace TW, Yankaskas BC. Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography. Radiology 1992;184:613-617
11. Fletcher SW, Black W, Harris R, Rimer BK, Shapiro S. Report of the International Workshop on Screening for Breast Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85:1644-1656
12. Goergen SK, Evans J, Cohen GP, MacMillan JH. Characteristics of breast carcinomas missed by screening radiologists. Radiology 1997;204:131-135
13. Robertson CL. A private breast imaging practice: medical audit of 25,788 screening and 1,077 diagnostic examinations. Radiology 1993;187:75-79
14. Sickles EA. Auditing your practice. In: Kopans DB, Mendelson EB, eds. RSNA categorical course in breast imaging. Oak Park, IL: Radiological Society of North America, 1995:81-91
15. Anderson ED, Muir BB, Walsh JS, Kirkpatrick AE. The efficacy of double reading mammograms in breast screening. Clin Radiol 1994;49:248-251
16. Anttinen I, Pamilo M, Soiva M, Roiha M. Double reading of mammography screening films: one radiologist or two? Clin Radiol 1993;48:414-421
17. Beam C, Sullivan D, Layde P. Effect of human variability on independent double reading in screening mammography. Acad Radiol 1996;3:891-897
18. Ciatto S, Del Turco MR, Morrone D, et al. Independent double reading of screening mammograms. J Med Screen 1995;2:99-101
19. 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
20. 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
21. Bird RE. Professional quality assurance for mammographic screening programs. Radiology 1990;177:587
22. Kopans DB. Breast imaging, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1998:214
23. Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Duffy SW, Day NE, Gad A, Grontoft O. Update of the Swedish two-county program of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 1992;30:187-210
24. Thurjell EL, Lemevall KA, Taube AA. Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program. Radiology 1994;191:241-244
25. Hendee WR, Beam C, Hendrick E. Proposition: all mammograms should be double-read. Med Phys 1999;26:115-118
26. Kopans DB. Double reading. Radiol Clin North Am 2000;38:719-724
27. Birdwell RL, Ikeda DM, O'Shaughnessy KF, Sickles EA. Mammographic characteristics of 115 missed cancers later detected with screening mammography and the potential utility of computer-aided detection. Radiology 2001;219:192-202
28. Ikeda DM, Andersson I, Wattsgard C, Janzon L, Linell F. Interval carcinomas in the Malmo Mammographic Screening Trial: radiographic appearance and prognostic considerations. AJR 1992;159:287-294
29. Baines CJ, McFarlane DV, Miller AB. The role of the reference radiologist: estimates of inter-observer agreement and potential delay in cancer detection in the National Breast Screening Study. Invest Radiol 1990;25:971-976
30. Harvey JA, Fajardo LL, Innis CA. Previous mammograms in patients with impalpable breast carcinoma: retrospective vs blinded interpretation. AJR 1993;161:1167-1172
31. Kopans DB. Breast imaging, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1998:793
32. Martin JE, Moskowitz M, Milbrath JR. Breast cancer missed by mammography. AJR 1979;132:737-739
33. van Dijck JA, Verbeek AL, Hendriks JH, 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
34. Warren Burhenne LJ, Wood SA, D'Orsi CJ, et al. Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography. Radiology 2000;215:554-562
35. Brem RF, Schoonjans JM. Radiologist detection of microcalcifications with and without computer-aided detection: a comparative study. Clin Radiol 2001;156:150-154
36. Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992. 42 USC §263b
37. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS), 3rd ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 1998