Impact of breast density on computer-aided detection for breast cancer

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 184, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 439-444

  Brem, Rachel F ^a   Hoffmeister, Jeffrey W ^b   Rapelyea, Jocelyn A ^a   Zisman, Gilat ^a   Mohtashemi, Kevin ^a   Jindal, Guarav ^a   DiSimio, Martin P ^b   Rogers, Steven K ^b  

^a GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND HEALTH SCIENCES   (United States)

^b iCAD Inc   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; BREAST TUMOR; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; ADULT; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MASS SCREENING; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; PATHOLOGY; RADIOGRAPHY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARD;

ADULT; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 15944386717     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/ajr.184.2.01840439     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Tabar L, Smith RA, Vitak B, et al. Mammographic screening: a key factor in the control of breast cancer. Cancer J 2003;9:15-27
2. Nystrom L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Frisell J, Nordenskjold B, Rutqvist LE. Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 2002;359:909-919.
3. Erratum in: Lancet 2002;360:724
4. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement Jan 21-23, 1997: Breast cancer screening for women ages 40-49. Available at: consensus.nih.gov/cons/cons.htm#1997. Accessed November 19, 2004
5. 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
6. Brem RF, Baum J, Lechner M, et al. Improvement in sensitivity of screening mammography with computer-aided detection: a multiinstitutional trial. AJR 2003;181:687-693
7. Bird RE, Wallace TW, Yankaskas BC. Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography. Radiology 1992;184:613-617
8. Mendelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1081-1087
9. 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
10. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system: BI-RADS atlas, 4th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2003
11. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 2003;138:168-175
12. 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
13. Freer TW, Ulissey MJ. Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology 2001;220:781-786
14. Ho WT, Lam PW. Clinical performance of computer-assisted detection in detecting carcinoma in breasts of different densities. Radiology 2003;58:133-136
15. Boyd NF, Dite GS, Stone J, et al. Heritability of mammographic density: a risk factor for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002;347:886-894
16. Thurfjell, et al. Breast density and the risk of breast cancer, (commentary) N Engl J Med 2002;347:866
17. Baum JK, Raza S, Brem RF. Prospective Evaluation of computer-aided detection (CAD) in screening mammography: CAD impact on mammographic interpretation time and work-up rate. Radiology 2001;221:521