Investigation of Reading Mode and Relative Sensitivity as Factors That Influence Reader Performance When Using Computer-Aided Detection Software

Academic Radiology

Volumn 16, Issue 9, 2009, Pages 1095-1107

  Paquerault, Sophie ^a   Samuelson, Frank W ^a   Petrick, Nicholas ^a   Myers, Kyle J ^a   Smith, Robert C ^a  

^a CENTER FOR DEVICES AND RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

computer aided detection; free response receiver operating characteristic; Observer study evaluation; reading mode; relative sensitivity

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLASSIFICATION ALGORITHM; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

ALGORITHMS; ARTIFACTS; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION, AUTOMATED; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SOFTWARE; SOFTWARE VALIDATION;

EID: 67849110387     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2009.03.024     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Helvie M. Improving mammographic interpretation: double reading and computer-aided diagnosis. Radiol Clin N Am 45 (2007) 801-811
2. Bird R.E., Wallace T.W., and Yankaskas B.C. Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography. Radiology 184 (1992) 613-617
3. Miglioretti D.L., Smith-Bindman R., Abraham L., et al. Radiologist characteristics associated with interpretive performance of diagnostic mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 99 (2007) 1854-1863
4. Huynh P.T., Jarolimek A.M., and Daye S. The false-negative mammogram. Radiographics 18 (1998) 1137-1154
5. Durfee S.M., Selland D.G., Smith D.N., et al. Sonographic evaluation of clinically palpable breast cancers invisible on mammography. Breast J 6 (2000) 247-251
6. Beam C., Layde P.M., and Sullivan D.C. Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Arch Intern Med 156 (1996) 209-213
7. Kerlikowske K., Carney P.A., Geller B., et al. Performance of screening mammography among women with and without a first-degree relative with breast cancer. Ann Intern Med 133 (2000) 855-863
8. Warren Burhenne L.J., Wood S.A., D'Orsi C.J., et al. Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography. Radiology 215 (2000) 554-562
9. Brem R.F., Baum J., Lechner M., et al. Improvement in sensitivity of screening mammography with computer-aided detection: a multiinstitutional trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181 (2003) 687-693
10. Ko J.M., Nicholas M.J., Mendel J.B., and Slanetz P.J. Prospective assessment of computer-aided detection in interpretation of screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187 (2006) 1483-1491
11. Malich A., Fischer D.R., and Bottcher J. CAD for mammography: the technique, results, current role and further developments. Eur Radiol 16 (2006) 1449-1490
12. Freer T.W., and Ulissey M.J. Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology 220 (2001) 781-786
13. Gur D., Sumkin J.H., Rockette H.E., et al. Changes in breast cancer detection and mammography recall rates after the introduction of a computer-aided detection system. J Natl Cancer Inst 96 (2004) 185-190
14. Birdwell R.L., Bandodkar P., and Ikeda D.M. Computer-aided detection with screening mammography in a university hospital setting. Radiology 236 (2005) 451-457
15. Helvie M.A., Hadjiiski L., Makariou E., et al. Sensitivity of noncommercial computer-aided detection system for mammographic breast cancer detection: pilot clinical trial. Radiology 231 (2004) 208-214
16. Khoo L.A., Taylor P., and Given-Wilson R.M. Computer-aided detection in the United Kingdom National Breast Screening Programme: prospective study. Radiology 237 (2005) 444-449
17. Fenton J.J., Taplin S.H., Carney P.A., et al. Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography. N Engl J Med 356 (2007) 1399-1409
18. Gilbert F.J., Astley S.M., Gillan M.G.C., et al. Single reading with computer-aided detection for screening mammography. N Engl J Med 359 (2008) 1675-1684
19. Astley S.M. Evaluation of computer-aided detection (CAD) prompting techniques for mammography. Br J Radiol 78 (2005) S20-S25
20. Krupinski E.A. The importance of perception research in medical imaging. Radiat Med 18 (2000) 329-334
21. Krupinski E.A., Nodine C.F., and Kundel H.L. A perceptually based method for enhancing pulmonary nodule recognition. Invest Radiol 28 (1993) 289-294
22. Kobayashi T., Xu X.W., MacMahon H., Metz C.E., and Doi K. Effect of a computer-aided diagnosis scheme on radiologists' performance in detection of lung nodules on radiographs. Radiology 199 (1996) 843-848
23. Paquerault S., Wade D.I., Petrick N., Myers K.J., and Samuelson F.W. Observer evaluation of computer-aided detection: second reader versus concurrent reader scenario. SPIE Med Imaging 6515 (2007) 65151N-65158N
24. Heath M., Bowyer K., Kopans D., Moore R., and Kegelmeyer W.P. The Digital Database for Screening Mammography. In: Yaffe M.J. (Ed). Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Digital Mammography (2001), Medical Physics Publishing, Madison, WI 212-218
25. Heath M., Bowyer K., Kopans D., et al. Current Status of the Digital Database for Screening Mammography. Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Digital Mammography (1998), Kluwer Academic, New York 457-460
26. Freedman M., Osicka T., Lo S.C., et al. The effect of database content on machine performance and radiologist performance improvement with chest CAD. Int Congr Ser 1281 (2005) 1087-1092
27. Beiden S.V., Wagner R.F., Doi K., et al. Independent versus sequential reading in ROC studies of computer-assist modalities: analysis of components of variance. Acad Radiol 9 (2002) 1036-1043
28. Samuelson F.W., and Petrick N. Comparing image detection algorithms using resampling. Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (2006), IEEE, New York 1312-1315