Radiologists' perceptions of computer aided detection versus double reading for mammography interpretation

Academic Radiology

Volumn 17, Issue 10, 2010, Pages 1217-1226

  Onega, Tracy ^a   Aiello Bowles, Erin J ^b   Miglioretti, Diana L ^b,c   Carney, Patricia A ^d   Geller, Berta M ^e   Yankaskas, Bonnie C ^f   Kerlikowske, Karla ^g   Sickles, Edward A ^g   Elmore, Joann G ^c  

^a DARTMOUTH MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b GROUP HEALTH RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^d OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast imaging; CAD; Computer aided detection; Double reading; Mammography

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MAMMOGRAPHY; NORMAL HUMAN; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIODIAGNOSIS; TIME MANAGEMENT;

EID: 77956459277     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2010.05.007     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Birdwell R.L., Bandodkar P., Ikeda D.M. Computer-aided detection with screening mammography in a university hospital setting. Radiology 2005, 236:451-457.
2. National Cancer Institute. Computer-aided interpretation of mammograms: questions and answers. Available at: Accessed July 2009. http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/pressreleases/CADmammographyQandA.
3. Taylor P., Potts H.W. Computer aids and human second reading as interventions in screening mammography: two systematic reviews to compare effects on cancer detection and recall rate. Eur J Cancer 2008, 44:798-807.
4. Freer T.W., Ulissey M.J. Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology 2001, 220:781-782.
5. Houssami N., Given-Wilson R., Ciatto S. Early detection of breast cancer: overview of the evidence on computer-aided detection in mammography screening. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2009, 53:171-172.
6. Morton M.J., Whaley D.H., Brandt K.R., Amrami K.K. Screening mammograms: interpretation with computer-aided detection-prospective evaluation. Radiology 2006, 239:375-383.
7. Beam C., Hendrick R. Proposition: all mammograms should be double-read. Med Phys 1999, 26:115-118.
8. Anttinen I., Pamilo M., Soiva M., Roiha M. Double reading of mammography screening films-one radiologist or two?. Clin Radiol 1993, 48:414-421.
9. Destounis S.V., DiNitto P., Logan-Young W., Bonaccio E., Zuley M.L., Willison K.M. Can computer-aided detection with double reading of screening mammograms help decrease the false-negative rate? Initial experience. Radiology 2004, 232:578-584.
10. Harvey S.C., Geller B., Oppenheimer R.G., Pinet M., Riddell L., Garra B. Increase in cancer detection and recall rates with independent double interpretation of screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003, 180:1461-1462.
11. Blanks R.G., Wallis M.G., Moss S.M. A comparison of cancer detection rates achieved by breast cancer screening programmes by number of readers, for one and two view mammography: results from the UK National Health Service breast screening programme. J Med Screen 1998, 5:195-201.
12. Thurfjell E.L., Lernevall K.A., Taube A.A.S. Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program. Radiology 1994, 191:241-244.
13. Brown J., Bryan S., Warren R. Mammography screening: an incremental cost effectiveness analysis of double versus single reading of mammograms. BMJ 1996, 312:809-822.
14. Perry N, Broeders M, Wolf CD, et al, eds. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. 4th ed. Available at: Accessed July 2009. http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_projects/2002/cancer/fp_cancer_2002_ext_guid_01.pdf.
15. Gilbert F.J., Astley S.M., Gillan M.G., et al. Single reading with computer-aided detection for screening mammography. N Engl J Med 2008, 359:1675-1684.
16. Hofvind S., Vacek P.M., Skelly J., Weaver D.L., Geller B.M. Comparing screening mammography for early breast cancer detection in Vermont and Norway. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008, 100:1082-1091.
17. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Home page. Available at: Accessed October 5, 2009. http://breastscreening.cancer.gov.
18. Ballard-Barbarsh R., Taplin S.H., Yankaskas B.C., et al. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997, 169:1001-1008.
19. Carney P.A., Geller B.M., Moffett H., et al. Current medicolegal and confidentiality issues in large, multicenter research programs. Am J Epidemiol 2000, 152:371-378.
20. Bandeen-Roche K., Zeger S.L., Rathouz P.J. Latent variable regression for multiple discrete outcomes. J Am Stat Assoc 1997, 92:1375-1386.
21. Lazersfeld P.F. Latent Structure Analysis 1968, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
22. Ciatto S., Del Turco M.R., Morrone D., et al. Independent double reading of screening mammograms. J Med Screen 1995, 2:99-101.
23. Breast Cancer Study 2002, Physician Insurers Association of America, Physician Insurers Association of America, Rockville, MD. Third Edition.
24. 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 2007, 356:1399-1409.
25. Gilbert F.J., Astely S.M., McGee M.A., et al. 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.
26. Hendrick R.E., Cutter G.R., Berns E.A., et al. Community-based mammography practice: services, charges, and interpretation methods. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005, 184:433-438.