Effect of computer-aided detection on mammographie performance: Experimental study on readers with different levels of experience

Acta Radiologica

Volumn 47, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 257-263

  Hukkinen, K ^a   Vehmas, T ^b   Pamilo, M ^b   Kivisaari, L ^b  

^a HOSPITAL DISTRICT OF HELSINKI AND UUSIMAA   (Finland)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Breast radiography; Cancer screening; Computers, diagnostic aid; Diagnostic radiography, observer performance

Indexed keywords

MAMMOGRAPHY; RADIOLOGY; STATISTICAL METHODS; THIN FILMS; TUMORS;

BREAST RADIOGRAPHY; CANCER SCREENING; COMPUTERS, DIAGNOSTIC AID; DIAGNOSTIC RADIOGRAPHY, OBSERVER PERFORMANCE;

COMPUTER AIDED ANALYSIS;

ARTICLE; BREAST TUMOR; CARCINOMA IN SITU; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PAGET NIPPLE DISEASE; RADIOGRAPHY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA IN SITU; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 33646233175     PISSN: 02841851     EISSN: 16000455     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02841850500539025     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Alberdi E, Povyakalo A, Strigini L, Ayton P. Effects of incorrect computer-aided detection (CAD) output on human decision-making in mammography. Acad Radiol 2004;11:909-18.
2. Barlow WE, Chi C, Carney PA, Taplin SH, D'orsi C, Cutter G, et al. Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:1840-50.
3. Beam CA, Layde PM, Sullivan DC. Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists, findings from national sample. Arch Intern Med 1996;156:209-13.
4. Birdwell RL, Ikeda DM, O'Shaughnessy KF, Sickles EA. Mammographie characteristics of missed cancers later detected with screening mammography and the potential utility of computer-aided detection. Radiology 2001;219:192-202.
5. Blanks RG, Wallis MG, Given-Wilson RM. Observer variability in cancer detection during routine repeat (incident) mammographie screening in a study of two versus one view mammography. J Med Screen 1999;6:152-8.
6. Brem RF, Schoonjans JM. Radiologist detection of microcalcifications with and without computer-aided detection: a comparative study. Clin Radiol 2001;56:150-4.
7. Ciatto S, Del Turco MR, Risso G, Catarzi S, Bonardi R, Viterbo V, et al. Comparison of standard reading and computer aided detection (CAD) on a national proficiency of screening mammography. Eur J Radiol 2003;45:135-8.
8. Conover WJ. Practical non-parametric statistics. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 1980:130-3.
9. Destounis SV, DiNitto P, Logan-Young W, Bonaccio E, Zuley ML, Willison KM. Can computer-aided detection with double reading of screening mammograms help decrease the false-negative rate? Initial experience. Radiology 2004;232:578-84.
10. Finnish Cancer Registry, Cancer statistics at www.cancerregistry.fi last updated on May 2005.
11. Freer TW, Ulissey MJ. Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology 2001;220:781-6.
12. Gram IT, Funkhouser E, Tabar L. The Tabar classification of mammographic parenchymal patterns. Eur J Radiol 1997;24:131-6.
13. Gur D, Sumkin JH, Rockette HE, Ganott M, Hakim C, Hardesty L, et al. Changes in breast cancer detection and mammography recall rates after the introduction of a computer-aided detection system. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:185-90.
14. Gönen M. Panageas KS, Larson SM. Statistical issues in analysis of diagnostic imaging experiments with multiple observations per patient. Radiology 2001;221:763-7.
15. Hawass NED. Comparing the sensitivities and specificities of two diagnostic procedures performed on the same group of patients. Br J Radiol 1997;70:360-6.
16. Karssemeijer N, Otten JDM, Verbeek ALM, Groenewoud JH, Koning HJ, Hendriks JHLC, et al. Computer-aided detection versus independent double reading of masses on mammograms. Radiology 2003;227:192-200.
17. Malich A, Marx C, Facius M, Boehm T, Fleck M, Kaiser WA. Tumour detection rate of a new commercially available computer-aided detection system. Eur Radiol 2001;11:2454-9.
18. Moberg K, Bjurstam N, Wilczek B, Rostgard L, Egge E, Muren C. Computed assisted detection of interval breast cancers. Eur J Radiol 2001;39:104-10.
19. Saarenmaa I, Salminen T, Geiger U, Holli K, Isola J, Kärkkäinen A, et al. The visibility of cancer on earlier mammograms in a population-based screening programme. Eur J Cancer 1999;35:1118-22.
20. Sickles EA, Wolverton DE. Dee KE. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. Radiology 2002;224:861-9.
21. Taylor PM, Champness J, Given-Wilson RM, Potts HWW, Johnston K. An evaluation of the impact of computer-based prompts on screen readers' interpretation of mammograms. Br J Radiol 2004;77:21-7.
22. Taylor P, Given-Wilson R, Champness J, Potts HWW, Johnston K. Assessing the impact of CAD on the sensitivity and specificity of film readers. Clin Rad 2004;59:1099-105.
23. Thurfjell E, Thurfjell MG, Egge E, Bjurstam N. Sensitivity and specificity of computer assisted breast cancer detection in mammography screening. Acta Radiol 1998;39:384-8.
24. Warren Burhenne LJ, Wood SA, D'Orsi CL Feig SA, Kopans DB, O'Shaughnessy KF, et al. Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography. Radiology 2000;215:554-62.