Evaluation of computer-aided detection systems in the detection of small invasive breast carcinoma

Radiology

Volumn 245, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 88-94

  Ellis, Richard L ^a   Meade, Andrew A ^a   Mathiason, Michelle A ^a   Willison, Kathy M ^b   Logan Young, Wende ^b  

^a GUNDERSEN LUTHERAN MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b Elizabeth Wende Breast Clinic   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CARCINOMA; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DEVICE; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INVASIVE CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 34548688463     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2451060760     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Thurfjell EL, Lernevall KA, Taube AA. Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program. Radiology 1994;191:241-244.
2. Anderson ED, Muir BB, Walsh JS, Kirkpatrick AE. The efficacy of double reading mammograms in breast screening. Clin Radiol 1994;49:248-251.
3. Thurfjell E. Mammography screening: one versus two views and independent double reading. Acta Radiol 1994;35:345-350.
4. 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.
5. Ciatto S, Del Turco MR, Morrone D, et al. Independent double reading for screening mammograms. J Med Screen 1995;2:99-101.
6. 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.
7. Birdwell RL, Bandodkar P, Ikeda DM. Computer-aided detection with screening mammography in a university hospital setting. Radiology 2005;236:451-457.
8. Morton MJ, Whaley DH, Brandt KR, Amrami KK. Screening mammograms: interpretation with computer-aided detection - prospective evaluation. Radiology 2006;239:375-383.
9. Gur D, Sumkin JH, Rockette HE, 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;96:185-190.
10. Cupples TE, Cunningham JE, Reynolds JC. Impact of computer-aided detection in a regional screening mammography program. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;185:944-950.
11. Feig SA, Sickles EA, Evans WP, Linver MN. Re: Changes in breast cancer detection and mammography recall rates after the introduction of a computer-aided detection system [letter]. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:1260-1261; author reply 1261.
12. Michaelson JS, Satija S, Kopans D, et al. Gauging the impact of breast carcinoma screening in terms of tumor size and death rate. Cancer 2003;98:2114-2124.
13. Michaelson JS, Silverstein M, Wyatt J, et al. Predicting the survival of patients with breast carcinoma using tumor size. Cancer 2002;95:713-723.
14. Tabar L, Duffy SW, Vitak B, Chen HH, Prevost TC. The natural history of breast, carcinoma: what have we learned from screening? Cancer 1999;86:449-462.
15. Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen HH, Yen MF, Duffy SW, Smith RA. Beyond randomized controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality. Cancer 2001;91:1724-1731.
16. Tabar L, Dean PB. Mammography and breast cancer: the new era. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2003;82:319-326.
17. Duffy SW, Tabar L, Vitak B, et al. The relative contributions of screen-detected in situ and invasive breast carcinomas in reducing mortality from the disease. Eur J Cancer 2003;39:1755-1760.
18. Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ, Wall C. The Canadian National Breast Screening Study-1: breast cancer mortality after 11 to 16 years of follow-up - a randomized screening trial of mammography in women age 40 to 49 years. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:305-312.
19. Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ, Wall C. Canadian National Breast Screening Study-2: 13-year results of a randomized trial in women aged 50-59 years. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1490-1499.
20. 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;232:578-584.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. Balleyguier C, Kinkel K, Fermanian J, et al. Computer-aided detection (CAD) in mammography: does it help the junior or the senior radiologist? Eur J Radiol 2005;54:90-96.
24. Vyborny CJ, Doi T, O'Shaughnessy KF, Romsdahl HM, Schneider AC, Stein AA. Breast cancer: importance of spiculation in computer aided detection. Radiology 2000;215:703-707.
25. Gur D, Stalder JS, Hardesty LA, et al. Computer-aided detection performance in mammographic examination of masses: assessment. Radiology 2004;233:418-423.
26. Baker JA, Rosen EL, Lo JY, Gimenez EI, Walsh R, Soo MS. Computer-aided detection (CAD) in screening mammography: sensitivity of commercial CAD systems for detecting architectural distortion. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:1083-1088.
27. Soo MS, Rosen EL, Xia JQ, Ghate S, Baker JA. Computer-aided detection of amorphous calcifications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:887-992.
28. Malich A, Sauner D, Marx G, et al. Influence of breast lesion size and histologic findings on tumor detection rate of a computer-aided detection system. Radiology 2003;228:851-856.
29. Brem RF, Hoffmeister JW, Zisman G, DeSimio MP, Rogers SK. A computer-aided detection system for the evaluation of breast cancer by mammographic appearance and lesion size. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:893-896.
30. Nishikawa RM, Giger ML, Doi K, et al. Effect of case selection on the performance of computer-aided detection schemes. Med Phys 1994;21:265-269.
31. Taylor P, Given-Wilson R, Champness J, Potts HW, Johnston K. Assessing the impact of CAD on the sensitivity and specificity of film readers. Clin Radiol 2004;59:1099-1105.