The preponderance of evidence supports computer-aided detection for screening mammography

Radiology

Volumn 253, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 9-16

  Birdwell, Robyn L ^a  

^a BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER SCREENING; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; MAN MACHINE INTERACTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; RECALL; REVIEW; TASK PERFORMANCE; BREAST TUMOR; FEMALE; PATHOLOGY; RADIOGRAPHY;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; DIAGNOSIS, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED;

EID: 70350503267     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2531090611     Document Type: Review

References (44)

1. Goldberg C. "If you don't find it often, you often don't find it." Boston Globe. May 31, 2005. http://www.bostonglobe.com. Accessed July 31, 2009.
2. Wolfe JM, Horowitz TS, Kenner NM. Cognitive psychology: rare items often missed in visual searches. Nature 2005;435:439-440.
3. Harvey JA, Fajardo LL, Innis CA. Previous mammograms in patients with impalpable breast carcinoma: retrospective vs blinded interpretation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1993; 161:1167-1172.
4. Linver M. Mammography: audit benchmarks. In: Berg WA, Birdwell RL, eds. Diagnostic imaging: breast. Salt Lake City, Utah: Amirsys, 2006; 18-23.
5. Bird RE, Wallace TW, Yankaskas BC. Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography. Radiology 1992;184:613-617.
6. Majid AS, de Paredes ES, Doherty RD, Sharma NR, Salvador X. Missed breast carcinoma: pitfalls and pearls. RadioGraphics 2003;23:881- 895.
7. Birdwell RL, Wang S. Mammography: screening. In: Berg WA, Birdwell RL, eds. Diagnostic imaging: breast. Salt Lake City, Utah: Amirsys, 2006; 6-11.
8. Nodine CF, Kundel HL, Lauver SC, Toto LC. Nature of expertise in searching mammograms for breast masses. Acad Radiol 1996; 3:1000-1006.
9. Mello-Thoms C. How does the perception of a lesion influence visual search strategy in mammogram reading? Acad Radiol 2006;13: 275-288.
10. Baines CJ, McFarlane DV, Miller AB. The role of the reference radiology: estimates of inter-observer agreement and potential delay in cancer detection in the national breast screening study. Invest Radiol 1990;25:971-976.
11. 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.
12. Berg WA, D'Orsi CJ, Jackson VP, et al. Does training in the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) improve biopsy recommendation or feature analysis agreement with experienced breast imagers at mammography? Radiology 2002;224:871-880.
13. Van Dijck JA, Verbeek AL, Hendriks JH, Holland R. The current detectability of breast cancer in a mammographic screening program. Cancer 1993;72:1933-1938.
14. Hofvind S, Skaane P, Vitak B, et al. Influence of review design on percentages of missed interval breast cancers: retrospective study of interval cancers in a population-based screening program. Radiology 2005;237: 437-443.
15. 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.
16. Brem RF, Baum J, Lechner M, et al. Improvement in sensitivity of screening mammography with computer-aided detection: a multiinstitutional trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:687-693.
17. Kopans DB, Rafferty EA, Kricun B, et al. Double reading mammograms among experienced radiologists [abstr]. In: Radiological Society of North America Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting Program. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 2004; 472.
18. Harvey SC, Geller B, Oppenheimer RG, Pinet M, Riddell L, Garra B. Increase in cancer detection and recall rates with independent double interpretation of screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180:1461-1467.
19. Zheng B, Leader JK, Abrams G, et al. Computer-aided detection schemes: the effect of limiting the number of cued regions in each case. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;182:579-583.
20. Paquerault S, Wade DI, Petrick N, Meyers KJ, Samuelson FW. Observer evaluation of computer-aided detection: second reader versus concurrent reader scenario. In: Jiang Y, Sahiner B, eds. Proceedings of SPIE: medical imaging 2007-image perception, observer performance, and technology assessment. Vol 6515. Bellingham, Wash: SPIE-The International Society for Optical Engineering, 2007.
21. Dean JC, Ilvento CC. Improved cancer detection using computer-aided detection with diagnostic and screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;187:20-28.
22. Skaane P, Kshirsagar A, Stapleton S, Young K, Castellino RA. Effect of computer-aided detection on independent double reading of paired screen-film and full-field digital screening mammograms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188:377-384.
23. Ikeda DM, Birdwell RL, O'Shaughnessy KF, Sickles EA, Brenner RF. Computer-aided detection output on 172 subtle findings on normal mammograms previously obtained in women with breast cancer detected at follow-up screening mammography. Radiology 2004;230:811-819.
24. Freer TW, Ulissey MJ. Screening mammography with CAD: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology 2001;220:781-786.
25. Birdwell RL, Bandodkar P, Ikeda DM. Computer-aided detection with screening mammography in a university hospital setting. Radiology 2005;236:451-457.
26. 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.
27. Morton MJ, Whaley DH, Brandt KR, et al. Screening mammograms: interpretation with computer-aided detection-prospective evaluation. Radiology 2006;239:375-383.
28. Brancato B, Houssami N, Francesca D, et al. Does computer-aided detection (CAD) contribute to the performance of digital mammography in a self-referred population? Breast Cancer Res Treat 2008;111: 373-376.
29. Gur D, Sum Kin JH, Rocketed 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.
30. 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.
31. Cupples TE, Cunningham JE, Reynolds JC. Impact of CAD in a regional screening mammography program. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;185:944-950.
32. Fenton JJ, Taplin SH, Carney PA, et al. Influence of computer aided detection on performance of screening mammography. N Engl J Med 2007;356:1399-1409.
33. Gromet M. Comparison of computer-aided detection to double reading of screening mammograms: review of 231,221 mammograms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;190: 854-859.
34. Nishikawa RM, Schmidt RA, Metz CE. Computer-aided screening mammography [letter]. N Engl J Med 2007;357:84; author reply 85.
35. Ruiz JF. Computer-aided screening mammography [letter]. N Engl J Med 2007;357: 84; author reply 85.
36. Feig SA, Birdwell RL, Linver MN. Computer-aided screening mammography [letter]. N Engl J Med 2007;357:84; author reply 85.
37. Georgian-Smith D, Moore RH, Halpern E, et al. Blinded comparison of computer-aided detection with human second reading in screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189:1135-1141.
38. Gilbert FJ, Astley SM, Gillan MG, et al. Single reading with computer-aided detection for screening mammography. N Engl J Med 2008;359:1675-1684.
39. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1773-1783.
40. Soo MS, Rosen EL, Zia JQ, Ghate S, Baker JA. Computer-aided detection of amorphous calcifications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005; 184:887-892.
41. 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.
42. ACM SIGCHI curricula for human-computer interaction. Association for Computing Machinery Web site. http://sigchi.org/cdg/index/html. Updated July 29, 2009. Accessed July 31, 2009.
43. Wolfe JM, Horowitz TS, Van Wert MJ, Kenner NM, Place SS, Kibbi N. Low target prevalence is a stubborn source of errors in visual search tasks. J Exp Psychol Gen 2007;136:623- 638.
44. Bond AB, Kamil AC. Visual predators select for crypticity and polymorphism in virtual prey. Nature 2002;415:609-613.