A computer-aided detection system for the evaluation of breast cancer by mammographic appearance and lesion size

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 184, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 893-896

  Brem, Rachel F ^a   Hoffmeister, Jeffrey W ^b   Zisman, Gilat ^a   DeSimio, 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

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; BREAST LESION; CANCER SIZE; COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; BREAST DISEASE; BREAST TUMOR; CALCINOSIS; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; RADIOGRAPHY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST DISEASES; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CALCINOSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED;

EID: 16244385901     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/ajr.184.3.01840893     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Nystrom L, Rutqvist LE, Wall S, et al. Breast cancer screening with mammography: overview of Swedish randomized trials. Lancet 1993;342:973-978
2. Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Chen HH, et al. Efficacy of breast cancer screening by age: new results from the Swedish two-country trial. Cancer 1995;75:2507-2517
3. Shapiro S. Screening: assessment of current studies. Cancer Suppl 1994;74:231-238
4. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Panel. National Institutes of Health Consensus development statement: breast cancer screening for women aged 40-49, January 21-23, 1997. J Natl Cancer Inst 1997;89:1015-1026
5. Feig SA, D'Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE, et al. American College of Radiology guidelines for breast cancer screening. AJR 1998;171:29-33
6. Bird RE, Wallace TW, Yankaskas BC. Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography. Radiology 1992;184:613-617
7. Fletcher SW, Black W, Harris R, et al. Special article: report of the International Workshop on Screening for Breast Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85:1644-1656
8. Goergen SK, Evans J, Cohen GPB, et al. Characteristics of breast carcinomas missed by screening radiologists. Radiology 1997;204:131-135
9. Robertson CL. A private breast imaging practice: medical audit of 25,788 screening and 1,077 diagnostic examinations. Radiology 1993;187:75-79
10. Sickles EA. Auditing your practice. In: Kopans DB, Mendelson EB, eds. RSNA categorical course in breast imaging. Oak Brook, IL: Radiological Society of North America, 1995:81-91
11. 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
12. Bird RE. Professional quality assurance for mammographic screening programs, (commentary) Radiology 1990;177:587
13. Kopans DB. Breast imaging, 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven, 1998:214
14. Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Duffy SW, et al. Update of the Swedish two-country program of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 1992;30:187-210
15. Thurfjell EL, Lernevall KA, Taube AAS. Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program. Radiology 1994;191:241-244
16. Kopans DB. Breast imaging, 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven, 1998:798
17. 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
18. 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
19. Kallergi M, Carney GM, Gaviria J. Evaluating the performance of detection algorithms in digital mammography. Med Phys 1999;26:267-275
20. Harvey JA, Fajardo LL, Innis CA. Previous mammograms in patients with impalpable breast carcinoma: retrospective vs blinded interpretation. AJR 1993;161:1167-1172
21. Martin JE, Moskowitz M, Milbrath JR. Breast cancer missed by mammography. AJR 1979;132:737-739
22. Tabar L, Chen HH, Duffy SW, et al. A novel method for prediction of long-term outcome of women with T1a, T1b, and 10-14 mm invasive breast cancers: a prospective study. Lancet 2000;355:429-433
23. Thurfjell EL, Thurfjell MG, Lindgren A. Mammographic finding as a predictor of survival in 1-9 mm invasive breast cancers: worse prognosis for cases presenting as calcifications. (abstr) Radiology 2000;217[suppl]:353
24. American Cancer Society Web site. Breast cancer facts & figures 2001-2002. Data source: National Cancer Institute Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results Program, 1999. Available at http://search.cancer.org/search?client= amcancer&site=amcancer&output=xml_no_dtd&proxystylesheet= amcancer&restrict=cancer&q=breast+cancer+facts+an d+figures. Accessed January 10, 2005
25. Brem RF, Schoonjans JM. Radiologist detection of microcalcifications with and without computer-aided detection: a comparative study. Clin Radiol 2001;56:150-154
26. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system: BI-RADS atlas, 4th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2003
27. 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
28. Baum JD, Raza S, Brem RF. Prospective evaluation of computer-aided detection (CAD) in screening mammography: CAD impact on mammographic interpretation time and work-up rate. (abstr) Radiology 2001;221:521.
29. Zheng B, Ganott MA, Britton CA, et al. Soft-copy mammographic readings with different computer-assisted detection cuing environments: preliminary findings. Radiology 2001;221:633-640
30. Shaw de Paredes E. Missed breast cancer: avoiding this pitfall. Appl Radiol 2000;29:15-20