Computer-aided detection performance in mammographic examination of masses: Assessment

Radiology

Volumn 233, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 418-423

  Gur, David ^a,c   Stalder, Jennifer S ^a   Hardesty, Lara A ^a,c   Zheng, Bin ^a,c   Sumkin, Jules H ^a,c   Chough, Denise M ^a,c   Shindel, Betty E ^a,c   Rockette, Howard E ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH GRADUATE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast neoplasms, diagnosis, 00.32; Cancer screening; Computers, diagnostic aid

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER STAGING; COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; DIAGNOSIS, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED;

EID: 7044239572     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2332040277     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Tabar L, Dean PB. Mammography and breast cancer: the new era. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2003; 82:319-326.
2. Freedman GM, Anderson PR, Goldstein LJ, et al. Routine mammography is associated with earlier stage disease and greater eligibility for breast conservation in breast carcinoma patients age 40 years and older. Cancer 2003; 98:918-925.
3. Elmore JG, Nakano CY, Koepsell TD, Desnick LM, D'Orsi CJ, Ransohoff DF. International variation in screening mammography interpretations in community-based programs. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003; 95:1384-1393.
4. Leung GM, Lam TH, Thach TQ, Hedley AJ. Will screening mammography in the East do more harm than good? Am J Public Health 2002; 92:1841-1846.
5. 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.
6. Sickles EA, Wolverton DE, Dee KE. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. Radiology 2002; 224:861-869.
7. Smith-Bindman R, Chu PW, Miglioretti DL, et al. Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United Kingdom. JAMA 2003; 290:2129-2137.
8. Thurfjell EL, Lernevall KA, Taube AA. Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program. Radiology 1994; 191:241-244.
9. Tourassi GD, Vargas-Voracek R, Catarious DM Jr, Floyd CE Jr. Computer-assisted detection of mammographic masses: a template matching scheme based on mutual information. Med Phys 2003; 30:2123-2130.
10. Gurcan MN, Chan HP, Sahiner B, Hadjiiski L, Petrick N, Helvie MA. Optimal neural network architecture selection: improvement in computerized detection of microcalcifications. Acad Radiol 2002; 9:420-429.
11. Roque AC, Andre TC. Mammography and computerized decision systems: a review. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2002; 980:83-94.
12. Kouskos E, Markopoulos C, Revenas K, Koufopoulos K, Kyriakou V, Gogas J. Computer-aided preoperative diagnosis of microcalcifications on mammograms. Acta Radiol 2003; 44:43-46.
13. Leichter I, Buchbinder S, Bamberger P, Novak B, Fields S, Lederman R. Quantitative characterization of mass lesions on digitized mammograms for computer-assisted diagnosis. Invest Radiol 2000; 35: 366-372.
14. 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.
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. 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.
17. 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.
18. Zheng B, Ganott MA, Britton CA, et al. Soft-copy mammographic readings with different computer-assisted detection cuing environments: preliminary findings. Radiology 2001; 221:633-640.
19. Lechner M, Nelson M, Elvecrog W. Comparison of two commercially available computer-aided detection (CAD) systems. Appl Radiol 2002; 31(suppl 4):31-35.
20. 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.
21. Nelson MT, Lechner MC. Comparison of three commercially available FDA approved computer-aided detection (CAD) systems (abstr). Radiology 2002; 225(P): 600.
22. Shile PE, Guingrich JA. Detecting "missed" breast cancers: a comparison. Appl Radiol 2002; 31(suppl 10):2-4.
23. Zheng B, Chang YH, Good WF, Gur D. Performance gain in computer-assisted detection schemes by averaging scores generated from artificial neural networks with adaptive filtering. Med Phys 2001; 28:2302-2308.
24. Zheng B, Sumkin JH, Good WF, Maitz GS, Chang YH, Gur D. Applying computer-assisted detection schemes to digitized mammograms after JPEG data compression: an assessment. Acad Radiol 2000; 7:595-602.
25. Zheng B, Chang YH, Gur D. Computerized detection of masses in digitized mammograms using single-image segmentation and a multilayer topographic feature analysis. Acad Radiol 1995; 2: 959-966.
26. 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; 11:2454-2459.
27. Castellino RA. Computer-aided detection: an overview. Appl Radiol 2001; 30(suppl 11):5-8.
28. Taylor CG, Champness J, Reddy M, Taylor P, Potts HW, Given-Wilson R. Reproducibility of prompts in computer-aided detection (CAD) of breast cancer. Clin Radiol 2003; 58:733-738.
29. Malich A, Azhari T, Bohm T, Fleck M, Kaiser WA. Reproducibility: an important factor determining the quality of computer aided detection (CAD) systems. Eur J Radiol 2000; 36:170-174.
30. Zheng B, Hardesty LA, Poller WR, Sumkin JH, Golla S. Mammography with computer-aided detection: reproducibility assessment - initial experience. Radiology 2003; 228:58-62.
31. D'Orsi CJ. Computer-aided detection: there is no free lunch. Radiology 2001; 221:585-586.
32. Hoffmeister JW, Rogers SK, DeSimio MP, Brem RF. Determining efficacy of mammographic CAD systems. J Digit Imaging 2002; 15(suppl 1):198-200.
33. 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.