Computer-based detection and prompting of mammographic abnormalities.

Mammographic film reading is a highly demanding task, particularly in screening programmes where the reader must perform a detailed visual search of a large number of images for early signs of abnormality, which are often subtle or small, and which occur very infrequently. False negative cases, where signs of abnormality are missed by a film reader, are known to occur. Computer based algorithms can be used to detect abnormal patterns in images, but it is not possible to reliably detect all signs of abnormality in mammograms, so screening cannot yet be fully automated. The most successful detection algorithms are, however, incorporated in computer-aided detection (CAD) systems which indicate potentially abnormal locations to the reader in a process known as prompting. CAD systems have the capacity to reduce the frequency of false negative errors by ensuring that suspicious regions of the images are thoroughly searched and by increasing the weighting attached to subtle signs that may otherwise have been dismissed. One of the areas currently being researched is the effect of prompting on human performance. This is complex, since readers are presented with prompts generated by multiple detection algorithms, each of which has a different sensitivity and specificity. This paper reviews progress in abnormality detection, the strengths and the weaknesses of CAD, and the methodologies used to evaluate CAD in a clinical setting.

[1]  K Doi,et al.  Image feature analysis and computer-aided diagnosis in digital radiography. I. Automated detection of microcalcifications in mammography. , 1987, Medical physics.

[2]  Susan M. Astley,et al.  Should we use humans or a machine to pre-screen mammograms? , 2003 .

[3]  Margarita Sordo,et al.  CADMIUM II: acquisition and representation of radiological knowledge for computerized decision support in mammography , 2000, AMIA.

[4]  Daniel Rueckert,et al.  Nonrigid registration using free-form deformations: application to breast MR images , 1999, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[5]  Susan M. Astley,et al.  Classification of breast tissue by texture analysis , 1992, Image Vis. Comput..

[6]  Nico Karssemeijer,et al.  Computer-aided detection versus independent double reading of masses on mammograms. , 2003, Radiology.

[7]  Hiroshi Fujita,et al.  Automated detection methods for architectural distortions around skinline and within mammary gland on mammograms , 2003, CARS.

[8]  M Poissonnier,et al.  Noise equalization, film-screen artifacts, and density representation , 2001 .

[9]  R. Blanks,et al.  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 , 1998, Journal of medical screening.

[10]  Impact of computer-placed prompts on sensitivity and specificity with different groups of mammographic film readers , 2003 .

[11]  J. Elmore,et al.  Does practice make perfect when interpreting mammography? , 2002, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[12]  Michael A. Wirth,et al.  Nonrigid mammogram registration using mutual information , 2002, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[13]  Susan M. Astley,et al.  AUTOMATED DETECTION OF MAMMOGRAPHIC ASYMMETRY USING ANATOMICAL FEATURES , 1993 .

[14]  T. Freer,et al.  Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. , 2001, Radiology.

[15]  Hiroshi Fujita,et al.  Artificial Neural Network Method for Detecting Clustered Microcalcifications in Masses on Mammograms , 2003 .

[16]  Berkman Sahiner,et al.  Optimal neural network architecture selection: improvement in computerized detection of microcalcifications. , 2002, Academic radiology.

[17]  R. Given-Wilson,et al.  Observer variability in cancer detection during routine repeat (incident) mammographic screening in a study of two versus one view mammography , 1999, Journal of medical screening.

[18]  Christopher J. Taylor,et al.  A statistical model of texture for medical image synthesis and analysis , 2003 .

[19]  Ian W. Ricketts,et al.  The Mammographic Image Analysis Society digital mammogram database , 1994 .

[20]  D. Kopans,et al.  Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. , 1997, Radiology.

[21]  Susan M. Astley,et al.  Model-based detection of spiculated lesions in mammograms , 1999, Medical Image Anal..

[22]  P. Huynh,et al.  The false-negative mammogram. , 1998, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[23]  Stephen W Hoare,et al.  On-line novelty detection for artefact identification in automatic anaesthesia record keeping. , 2002, Medical engineering & physics.

[24]  Susan M. Astley,et al.  An Evaluation of a Commercial Prompting System in a Busy Screening Centre , 2003 .

[25]  Susan M. Astley,et al.  Sites of Occurrence of Malignancies in Mammograms , 1998, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[26]  E. Thurfjell,et al.  Sensitivity and specificity of computer-assisted breast cancer detection in mammography screening , 1998, Acta radiologica.

[27]  Serge Muller,et al.  Quantitative Modelling of Microcalcification Detection in Digital Mammography , 1999, MICCAI.

[28]  P D Britton,et al.  Interval cancer peer review in East Anglia: implications for monitoring doctors as well as the NHS breast screening programme. , 2001, Clinical radiology.

[29]  Joann G Elmore,et al.  Does practice make perfect when interpreting mammography? Part II. , 2003, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[30]  Nico Karssemeijer,et al.  Detection of stellate distortions in mammograms , 1996, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[31]  Alastair G. Gale,et al.  Breast screening: visual search and observer performance , 1994, Medical Imaging.

[32]  S Field,et al.  A pilot evaluation of the R2 image checker system and users' response in the detection of interval breast cancers on previous screening films. , 2001, Clinical radiology.

[33]  D R Dance,et al.  Segmentation of mammograms using multiple linked self-organizing neural networks. , 1995, Medical physics.

[34]  L. Tabár,et al.  Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography. , 2000, Radiology.

[35]  S. Moss,et al.  Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of double reading of mammograms in breast cancer screening: findings of a systematic review. , 2001, Breast.

[36]  K Doi,et al.  Computerized detection of masses in digital mammograms: automated alignment of breast images and its effect on bilateral-subtraction technique. , 1994, Medical physics.

[37]  P Haddawy,et al.  Construction of a Bayesian network for mammographic diagnosis of breast cancer , 1997, Comput. Biol. Medicine.

[38]  Michael Brady,et al.  Novelty detection for the identification of masses in mammograms , 1995 .

[39]  P. Taylor,et al.  An evaluation of the impact of computer-based prompts on screen readers' interpretation of mammograms. , 2004, The British journal of radiology.

[40]  Nico Karssemeijer,et al.  ADAPTIVE NOISE EQUALIZATION AND RECOGNITION OF MICROCALCIFICATION CLUSTERS IN MAMMOGRAMS , 1993 .