An Observer Study for a Computer-Aided Reading Protocol (CARP) in the Screening Environment for Digital Mammography

Academic Radiology

Volumn 18, Issue 11, 2011, Pages 1420-1429

  Moin, Paymann ^a   Deshpande, Ruchi ^a   Sayre, Jim ^b   Messer, Ellen ^a   Gupte, Sangeeta ^c   Romsdahl, Harlan ^c   Hasegawa, Akira ^c   Liu, Brent J ^a  

^a University of Southern California   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c FUJIFILM Medical Systems Inc   (United States)

Author keywords

Computer aided detection; Mammography; Microcalcifications; ROC observer study; Work flow

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CALCIFICATION; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; IMAGE DISPLAY; INTERNET; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; RESIDENT; SCORING SYSTEM; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TIME MANAGEMENT; WORKFLOW;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; DATA DISPLAY; DIAGNOSIS, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; EFFICIENCY, ORGANIZATIONAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERNET; MAMMOGRAPHY; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC;

EID: 80053596755     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: 18784046     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2011.07.003     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Sahiner B., Chan H.P., Hadjiiski L.M., et al. Multi-modality CADx: ROC study of the effect on radiologists' accuracy in characterizing breast masses on mammograms and 3D ultrasound images. Acad Radiol 2009, 16:810-818.
2. ACR Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas (BI-RADS Atlas) 2003, American College of Radiology, American College of Radiology, Reston, VA.
3. Weigel S., Decker T., Korsching E., et al. Calcifications in digital mammographic screening: improvement of early detection of invasive breast cancers?. Radiology 2008, 255:738-745.
4. Uematsu T., Kasami M., Yuen S. A cluster of microcalcifications: women with high risk for breast cancer versus other women. Breast Cancer (Tokyo) 2009, 16:307-314.
5. Haygood T.M., Wang J., Atkinson E.N., et al. Timed efficiency of interpretation of digital and film-screen screening mammograms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009, 192:216-220.
6. Nishikawa R.M., Acharyya S., Gatsonis C., et al. Comparison of soft-copy and hard-copy reading for full-field digital mammography. Radiology 2009, 251:41-49.
7. Berns E.A., Hendrick R.E., Solari M., et al. Digital and screen-film mammography: comparison of image acquisition and interpretation times. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006, 187:38-41.
8. Giger M.L., Chan H.P., Boone J. Anniversary paper: history and status of CAD and quantitative image analysis: the role of medical physics and AAPM. Med Phys 2008, 35:5799-5820.
9. Paquerault S., Hardy P.T., Wersto N., et al. Investigation of optimal use of computer-aided detection systems: the role of the "machine" in decision making process. Acad Radiol 2010, 17:1112-1121.
10. Zheng B., Chough D., Ronald P., et al. Actual versus intended Use of CAD systems in the clinical environment. Progr Biomed Optics Imaging 2006, 7.
11. Mello-Thoms C. Perception of breast cancer: eye-position analysis of mammogram interpretation. Acad Radiol 2003, 10:4-12.
12. Landis J.R., Koch G.G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977, 33:159-174.
13. Obuchowski N.A. ROC analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005, 184:364-372.
14. Dorfman D.D., Berbaum K.S., Metz C.E. Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Invest Radiol 1992, 27:723-731.
15. Jiang Y., Metz C.E. BI-RADS data should not be used to estimate ROC curves. Radiology 2010, 256:29-31.
16. Crewson P.E. Reader agreement studies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005, 184:1391-1397.
17. Pijnappel R.M., Peeters P.H., Hendriks J.H., et al. Reproducibility of mammographic classifications for non-palpable suspect lesions with microcalcifications. Br J Radiol 2004, 77:312-314.
18. Mendez A., Cabanillas F., Echenique M., et al. Mammographic features and correlation with biopsy findings using 11-gauge stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (SVABB). Ann Oncol 2004, 15:450-454.
19. Mello-Thoms C., Nodine C.F., Weinstein S.P., et al. Unobtrusive method for monitoring visual attention during mammogram reading. Medical Imaging 2000: Image Perception and Performance: Proceedings of SPIE 2000, Volume 3981:100-163. SPIE, Bellingham, WA. E.A. Krupinski (Ed.).
20. Leung J.W., Margolin F.R., Dee K.E., et al. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography in a community practice: are there differences between specialists and general radiologists?. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007, 188:236-241.
21. Sickles E.A., Wolverton D.E., Dee K.E. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. Radiology 2002, 224:861-869.
22. Elmore J.G., Jackson S.L., Abraham L., et al. Variability in interpretive performance at screening mammography and radiologists' characteristics associated with accuracy. Radiology 2009, 253:641-651.