Variable size computer-aided detection prompts and mammography film reader decisions

Breast Cancer Research

Volumn 10, Issue 4, 2008, Pages

  Gilbert, Fiona J ^a   Astley, Susan M ^b   Boggis, Caroline R M ^c   McGee, Magnus A ^d   Griffiths, Pamela M ^e   Duffy, Stephen W ^f   Agbaje, Olorunsola F ^f   Gillan, Maureen G C ^a   Wilson, Mary ^c   Jain, Anil K ^c   Barr, Nicola ^c   Beetles, Ursula M ^c   Griffiths, Miriam A ^c   Johnson, Jill ^c   Roberts, Rita M ^c   Deans, Heather E ^g   Duncan, Karen A ^g   Iyengar, Geeta ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^c WYTHENSHAWE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO   (New Zealand)

^e Nowgen Centre   (United Kingdom)

^f QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^g North East Scotland Breast Screening Centre ^*  (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST TUMOR; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; COMPUTERS; DIAGNOSIS, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 65849411700     PISSN: 14655411     EISSN: 1465542X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/bcr2137     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Huynh PT, Jarolimek AM, Daye S. The false-negative mammogram. Radiographics 1998, 18:1137-1154.
2. Sickles EA, Wolverton DE, Dee KE. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. Radiology 2002, 224:861-869.
3. Thurfjell E. Mammography screening. One versus two views and independent double reading. Acta Radiol 1994, 35:345-350.
4. Elmore JG, Wells CK, Lee CH, Howard DH, Feinstein AR. Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms. N Engl J Med 1994, 331:1493-1499.
5. Anderson ED, Muir BB, Walsh JS, Kirkpatrick AE. The efficacy of double reading mammograms in breast screening. Clin Radiol 1994, 49:248-251.
6. Astley SM. Computer-based detection and prompting of mammographic abnormalities. Br J Radiol 2004, 77 Spec No 2:S194-S200. 15677361.
7. Taylor P. Computer aids for detection and diagnosis in mammography. Imaging 2002, 14:472-477.
8. Warren Burhenne LJ, Wood SA, D'Orsi CJ, Feig SA, Kopans DB, O'Shaughnessy KF, Sickles EA, Tabar L, Vyborny CJ, Castellino RA. Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography. Radiology 2000, 215:554-562.
9. Blanks RG, Wallis MG, Given-Wilson RM. Observer variability in cancer detection during routine repeat (incident) mammographic screening in a study of two versus one view mammography. J Med Screen 1999, 6:152-158.
10. Bird RE, Wallace TW, Yankaskas BC. Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography. Radiology 1992, 184:613-617.
11. Nodine CF, Kundel HL, Lauver SC, Toto LC. Nature of expertise in searching mammograms for breast masses. Acad Radiol 1996, 3:1000-1006.
12. Nodine CF, Mello-Thoms C, Weinstein SP, Kundel HL, Conant EF, Heller-Savoy RE, Rowlings SE, Birnbaum JA. Blinded review of retropectively visible unreported breast cancers: an eye-position analysis. Radiology 2001, 221:122-129.
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. 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.
15. 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.
16. Morton MM, Whaley DH, Brandt KR, Amrami KK. Screening mammograms: interpretation with computer-aided detection-prospective evaluation. Radiology 2006, 239:425-437.
17. Dean JC, Ilvento CC. Improved cancer detection using computer-aided detection with diagnostic and screening mammography: prospective study of 104 cancers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006, 187:20-28.
18. Ko JM, Nicholas MJ, Mendel JB, Slanetz PJ. Prospective assessment of computer-aided detection in interpretation of screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006, 187:1483-1491.
19. Astley SM. Computer-aided detection for screening mammography. Acad Radiol 2004, 11:1139-1143.
20. Zheng B, Swensson RG, Golla S, Hakim CM, Shah R, Wallace L, Gur D. Detection and classification performance levels of mammographic masses under different computer-aided detection cueing environments. Acad Radiol 2004, 11:398-406.
21. Berg WA, Campassi C, Langenberg P, Sexton MJ. Breast imaging reporting and data system: inter- and intra-observer variability in feature analysis and final assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000, 174:1769-1777.
22. Beam CA, Conant EF, Sickles EA. Factors affecting radiologist inconsistency in screening mammography. Acad Radiol 2002, 9:531-540.
23. D'Orsi CJ. Computer-aided detection: there is no free lunch. Radiology 2001, 221:585-586.
24. Moberg K, Bjurstam N, Wilczek B, Rostgard L, Egge E, Muren C. Computed assisted detection of interval breast cancers. Eur J Radiol 2001, 39:104-110.
25. Malich A, Fischer DR, Böttcher J. CAD for mammography; the technique, results, current role and further developments. Eur Radiol 2006, 16:1449-1460. 16416275.
26. Nagel RH, Nishikawa RM, Papaioannou J, Doi K. Analysis of methods for reducing false positives in the automated detection of clustered microcalcifications in mammograms. Med Phys 1998, 25:1502-1506.
27. Nishikawa RM. Current status and future directions of computer-aided diagnosis in mammography. Comput Med Imaging Graph 2007, 31:224-235.
28. 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.
29. Roehrig J. The manufacturer's perspective. Br J Radiol 2005, 78:S41-S45.
30. CAD and Mammography. , http://www.r2tech.com/mammography/home/index.php
31. Karssemeijer N. Use of prompt magnitude in computer aided detection of masses in mammograms. Lect Notes Comput Sci 2006, 4046:54-60.
32. Gilbert FJ, Astley SM, McGee MA, Gillan MGC, Boggis CRM, Griffiths PM, Duffy SW. Single reading with computer-aided detection and double reading of screening mammograms in the United Kingdom National Breast Screening Program. Radiology 2006, 241:47-53.
33. NHS Breast Screening Programme Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening Radiology 2005, Sheffield: NHS Cancer Screening Programmes, NHS Breast Screening Programme.
34. Astley SM, Duffy SW, Boggis CRM, Wilson M, Barr NB, Beetles UM, Griffiths MA, Jain A, Johnson J, Roberts RM, Deans H, Duncan K, Iyengar G, Agbaje O, Griffiths PM, McGee MA, Gillan MGC, Gilbert FJ. Mammography reading with computer-aided detection (cad): performance of different readers. Lect Notes Comput Sci 2006, 4046:97-104.
35. Stata Corporation. , http://www.stata.com
36. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Frankel S, Ominsky S, Sickles E, Ernster V. Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998, 90:1801-1809.
37. Beam CA, Layde PM, Sullivan DC. Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Findings from a national sample. Arch Intern Med 1996, 156:209-213.
38. 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, 77:21-27.
39. Bornefalk H. Implications of unchanged detection criteria with CAD as second reader of mammograms. Med Phys 2006, 33:922-929.
40. Birdwell RL, Bandodkar P, Ikeda DM. Computer-aided detection with screening mammography in a university hospital setting. Radiology 2005, 236:451-457.
41. Alberdi E, Povyakalo AA, Strigini L, Ayton P, Hartswood M, Proctor R, Slack R. Use of computer-aided detection (CAD) tools in screening mammography: a multidisciplinary investigation. Br J Radiol 2005, 78:S31-S40.
42. Alberdi E, Povyakalo AA, Strigini L, Ayton P. Effects of incorrect computer-aided detection (CAD) output on decision-making in mammography. Acad Radiol 2004, 11:909-918.
43. Hartswood M, Proctor R. Computer-aided mammography: a case study of coping with fallibility in a skilled decision-making task. Top Health Inf Manage 2000, 20:38-54.
44. Krupinski EA. Computer-aided detection in clinical environment: benefits and challenges for radiologists. Radiology 2004, 231:7-9.
45. Astley SM, Chasser C, Quarterman C, Hillier VF, Gilbert FJ, Boggis C. The impact of reader training on computer-aided detection in mammography. Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Digital Mammography: Durham, NC 2004, 140. Chapel Hill, NC, Pisano E.
46. Karssemeijer N, Otten JDM, Rijken H, Holland R. Computer aided detection of masses in mammograms as decision support. Br J Radiol 2006, 79:S123-S126.
47. Taylor P, Champness J, Given-Wilson R, Johnston K, Potts H. Impact of computer-aided detection prompts on the sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography. Health Technol Assess 2005, 9:1-58.
48. Gur D, Sumkin JH, Rockette HE, Ganott M, Hakim C, Hardesty L, Poller WR, Shah R, Wallace L. 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.
49. Baker JA, Lo JY, Delong DM, Floyd CE. Computer-aided detection in screening mammography: variability in cues. Radiology 2004, 233:411-417.
50. Karssemeijer N, Otten JD, Verbeek AL, Groenewoud JH, de Koning HJ, Hendriks JH, Holland R. Computer-aided detection versus independent double reading of masses on mammograms. Radiology 2003, 227:192-200.
51. 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.
52. Khoo LAL, Taylor P, Given-Wilson RM. Computer-aided detection in the United Kingdom National Breast Screening Programme: prospective study. Radiology 2005, 237:444-449.
53. Destounis S, Hanson S, Roehrig J. Computer-aided-detection marker value and breast density in the detection of invasive lobular carcinoma. International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery 2007, 2:99-104.
54. Ho WT, Lam PW. Clinical performance of computer-assisted detection (CAD) system in detecting carcinoma in breasts of different densities. Clin Radiol 2003, 58:133-136.
55. Brem RF, Hoffmeister JW, Rapelyea JA, Zisman G, Mohtashemi K, Jindal G, Disimio MP, Rogers SK. Impact of breast density on computer-aided detection for breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005, 184:439-444.
56. Malich A, Fischer DR, Facius M, Petrovitch A, Boettcher J, Marx C, Hansch A, Kaiser WA. Effect of breast density on computer aided detection. J Digit Imaging 2005, 18:227-233.
57. Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, White D, Finder CA, Taplin SH, White E. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000, 92:1081-1087.
58. Krupinski EA. Visual search of mammographic lesions. Acad Radiol 2005, 12:965-969.