Computer-aided detection performance in mammographic examination of masses: assessment.

PURPOSE To compare performance of two computer-aided detection (CAD) systems and an in-house scheme applied to five groups of sequentially acquired screening mammograms. MATERIALS AND METHODS Two hundred nineteen film-based mammographic examinations, classified into five groups, were included in this study. Group 1 included 58 examinations in which verified malignant masses were detected during screening; group 2, 39 in which all available latest examinations were performed prior to diagnosis of these malignant masses (subset of 39 women from group 1); group 3, 22 in which findings were interpreted as negative but were verified as cancer within 1 year from the negative interpretation (missed cancers); group 4, 50 in which findings were negative and patients were not recalled for additional procedures; and group 5, 50 in which patients were recalled for additional procedures and findings were negative for cancer. In all examinations, images were processed with two Food and Drug Administration-approved commercially available CAD systems and an in-house scheme. Performance levels in terms of true-positive detection rates and number of false-positive identifications per image and per examination were compared. RESULTS Mass detection rates in positive examinations (group 1) were 67%-72%. Detection rates among three systems were not significantly different (P > .05). In 50 negative screening examinations (group 4), false-positive rates ranged from 1.08 to 1.68 per four-view examination. Performance level differences among systems were significant for false-positive rates (P = .008). Performance of all systems was at levels lower than publicly suggested in some retrospective studies. False-positive CAD cueing rates were significantly higher for negative examinations in which patients were recalled (group 5) than they were for those in which patients were not recalled (group 4) (P < or = .002). CONCLUSION Performance of CAD systems for mass detection at mammography varies significantly, depending on examination and system used. Actual performance of all systems in clinical environment can be improved.

[1]  Martin P DeSimio,et al.  Determining efficacy of mammographic CAD systems. , 2002, Journal of digital imaging.

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

[3]  M. Lechner,et al.  Comparison of two commercially available computer-aided detection (CAD) systems , 2002, Applied Radiology.

[4]  Y H Chang,et al.  Applying computer-assisted detection schemes to digitized mammograms after JPEG data compression: an assessment. , 2000, Academic radiology.

[5]  C J D'Orsi,et al.  Computer-aided detection: there is no free lunch. , 2001, Radiology.

[6]  D. Wolverton,et al.  Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. , 2002, Radiology.

[7]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  International variation in screening mammography interpretations in community-based programs. , 2003, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[8]  Thomas Boehm,et al.  Tumour detection rate of a new commercially available computer-aided detection system , 2001, European Radiology.

[9]  A. Roque,et al.  Mammography and Computerized Decision Systems , 2002, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[10]  Y H Chang,et al.  Performance gain in computer-assisted detection schemes by averaging scores generated from artificial neural networks with adaptive filtering. , 2001, Medical physics.

[11]  W A Kaiser,et al.  Reproducibility--an important factor determining the quality of computer-aided detection (CAD) systems. , 2000, European journal of radiology.

[12]  Bin Zheng,et al.  Mammography with computer-aided detection: reproducibility assessment initial experience. , 2003, Radiology.

[13]  J Champness,et al.  Reproducibility of prompts in computer-aided detection (CAD) of breast cancer. , 2003, Clinical radiology.

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

[15]  Craig A. Beam,et al.  Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Findings from a national sample. , 1996, Archives of internal medicine.

[16]  Rene Vargas-Voracek,et al.  Computer-assisted detection of mammographic masses: a template matching scheme based on mutual information. , 2003, Medical physics.

[17]  David Gur,et al.  Computer-aided detection schemes: the effect of limiting the number of cued regions in each case. , 2004, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[18]  Alexandra L Hanlon,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 , 2003, Cancer.

[19]  J. Baker,et al.  Computer-aided detection (CAD) in screening mammography: sensitivity of commercial CAD systems for detecting architectural distortion. , 2003, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[20]  S. Fields,et al.  Quantitative characterization of mass lesions on digitized mammograms for computer-assisted diagnosis. , 2000, Investigative radiology.

[21]  A. Hedley,et al.  Will screening mammography in the East do more harm than good? , 2002, American journal of public health.

[22]  Y H Chang,et al.  Computerized detection of masses in digitized mammograms using single-image segmentation and a multilayer topographic feature analysis. , 1995, Academic radiology.

[23]  L. Tabár,et al.  Mammography and breast cancer: the new era , 2003, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

[24]  Rachel F Brem,et al.  Improvement in sensitivity of screening mammography with computer-aided detection: a multiinstitutional trial. , 2003, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[25]  C. Markopoulos,et al.  Computer-aided preoperative diagnosis of microcalcifications on mammograms. , 2003, Acta radiologica.

[26]  Luisa P. Wallace,et al.  Changes in breast cancer detection and mammography recall rates after the introduction of a computer-aided detection system. , 2004, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[27]  E. Thurfjell,et al.  Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program. , 1994, Radiology.

[28]  Karla Kerlikowske,et al.  Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United kingdom. , 2003, JAMA.

[29]  B. Zheng,et al.  Soft-copy mammographic readings with different computer-assisted detection cuing environments: preliminary findings. , 2001, Radiology.

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