Can computer-aided detection with double reading of screening mammograms help decrease the false-negative rate? Initial experience

Radiology

Volumn 232, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 578-584

  Destounis, Stamatla V ^a   DiNitto, Patricia ^a   Logan Young, Wende ^a   Bonaccio, Ermelinda ^a   Zuley, Margarita L ^a   Willison, Kathleen M ^a  

^a Elizabeth Wende Breast Clinic   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast neoplasms, radiography; Breast radiography, quality assurance; Computers, diagnostic aid

Indexed keywords

BREAST CALCIFICATION; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL; CARCINOMA, INTRADUCTAL, NONINFILTRATING; DIAGNOSIS, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 3242748896     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2322030034     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. Howe HL, Wingo PA, Thun MJ, et al. The annual report to the nation on the status of cancer (1973-1998), featuring cancers with recent increasing trends. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001; 93:824-842.
2. Greenlee RT, Hill-Harmon MB, Murray T, Thun M. Cancer statistics 2001. CA Cancer J Clin 2001; 51:15-36.
3. Leitch AM, Dodd GD, 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.
4. Kerlikowske K, Barclay J. Outcomes of modern screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997; 22:105-111.
5. National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference on Breast Cancer Screening for Women Ages 40-49: proceedings. Bethesda, Maryland, USA. January 21-23, 1997. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997; 22:vii-xviii, 1-156.
6. Shapiro S. The status of breast cancer screening: a quarter of a century of research. World J Surg 1989; 13:9-18.
7. 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.
8. Sala E, Warren R, McCann J, Duffy S, Luben R, Day N. High-risk mammographic parenchymal patterns, hormone replacement therapy and other risk factors: a case-control study. Int J Epidemiol 2000; 29:629-636.
9. Mandelson 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.
10. Ikeda DM, 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.
11. Bird RE, Wallace TW, Yankaskas BC. Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography. Radiology 1992; 184:613-617.
12. 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.
13. Baines CJ, Dayan R. A tangled web: factors likely to affect the efficacy of screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999; 91:833-838.
14. Baker LH. Breast cancer detection demonstration project: 5-year summary report. CA Cancer J Clin 1982; 32:194-225.
15. Harvey JA, Fajardo LL, Innis CA. Previous mammograms on patients with impalpable breast carcinoma: retrospective vs. blind interpretation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1993; 161:1167-1172.
16. Duncan AA, Wallis MG. Classifying interval cancers. Clin Radiol 1995; 50:774-777.
17. 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.
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. Murphy WA, Destouet JM, Monsees BS. Professional quality assurance for mammography screening programs. Radiology 1990; 175:319-320.
20. Kan L, Olivotto IA, Warren-Burhenne LJ, et al. Standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening program. Radiology 2000; 215:563-567.
21. Ciatto S, Del Turco MR, Morrone D, et al. Independent double reading of screening mammograms. J Med Screen 1995; 2:99-101.
22. Thurfjell EL, Lernevall K, Taube AA. Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program. Radiology 1994; 191:241-244.
23. Beam C, Sullivan D, Layde P. Effect of human variability on independent double reading in screening mammography. Acad Radiol 1996; 3:891-897.
24. Anttinen I, Pamilo M, Soiva M, Roiha M. Double reading of mammography screening films: one radiologist or two? Clin Radiol 1993; 48:414-421.
25. Zheng B, Ganott MA, Britton CA, et al. Soft-copy mammographic reading with different computer-assisted detection cuing environments: preliminary findings. Radiology 2001; 221:633-640.
26. Jiang Y, Nishikawa RM, Schmidt RA, Toledano AY, Doi K. Potential of computer-aided diagnosis to reduce variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms depicting microcalcifications. Radiology 2001; 220:787-794.
27. Kegelmeyer WP, Pruneda JM, Bourland PD, Hillis A, Riggs MW, Nipper ML. Computer-aided mammographic screening for spiculated lesions. Radiology 1994; 191:331-337.
28. Chan HP, Sahiner B, Helvie MA, et al. Improvement of radiologists' characterization of mammographic masses by using computer-aided diagnosis: an ROC study. Radiology 1999; 212:817-827.
29. 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.
30. Logan-Young W. The breast imaging center: successful management in today's environment. Radiol Clin North Am 2000; 38:853-860.
31. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BIRADS). Part III: Follow-up and outcome monitoring. Available at: www.acr.org. Accessed November 16, 2002.
32. Mammography Quality Standards Act Regulations, February 6, 2002 (67 Federal Register 5446), part 900: mammography, subpart A: accreditation. Available at: www.fda.gov/cdrh/mammography/frmamcom2.html#s9005. Accessed June 7, 2004.