Soft-copy mammographic readings with different computer-assisted detection cuing environments: preliminary findings.

PURPOSE To assess the performance of radiologists in the detection of masses and microcalcification clusters on digitized mammograms by using different computer-assisted detection (CAD) cuing environments. MATERIALS AND METHODS Two hundred nine digitized mammograms depicting 57 verified masses and 38 microcalcification clusters in 85 positive and 35 negative cases were interpreted independently by seven radiologists using five display modes. Except for the first mode, for which no CAD results were provided, suspicious regions identified with a CAD scheme were cued in all the other modes by using a combination of two cuing sensitivities (90% and 50%) and two false-positive rates (0.5 and 2.0 per image). A receiver operating characteristic study was performed by using soft-copy images. RESULTS CAD cuing at 90% sensitivity and a rate of 0.5 false-positive region per image improved observer performance levels significantly (P < .01). As accuracy of CAD cuing decreased so did observer performances (P < .01). Cuing specificity affected mass detection more significantly, while cuing sensitivity affected detection of microcalcification clusters more significantly (P < .01). Reduction of cuing sensitivity and specificity significantly increased false-negative rates in noncued areas (P < .05). Trends were consistent for all observers. CONCLUSION CAD systems have the potential to significantly improve diagnostic performance in mammography. However, poorly performing schemes could adversely affect observer performance in both cued and noncued areas.

[1]  R. Smith,et al.  Breast cancer screening among women younger than age 50: A current assessment of the issues , 2000, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[2]  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.

[3]  K L Lam,et al.  Digitization requirements in mammography: effects on computer-aided detection of microcalcifications. , 1994, Medical physics.

[4]  E. Krupinski,et al.  Perceptual enhancement of tumor targets in chest X-ray images , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.

[5]  H. Sittek,et al.  [Computer-assisted analysis of mammograms in routine clinical diagnosis]. , 1998, Der Radiologe.

[6]  E. Krupinski,et al.  Searching for lung nodules. Visual dwell indicates locations of false-positive and false-negative decisions. , 1989, Investigative radiology.

[7]  R. Bird,et al.  Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography. , 1992, Radiology.

[8]  Elizabeth A. Krupinski,et al.  Recording and analyzing eye-position data using a microcomputer workstation , 1992 .

[9]  G Wolf,et al.  [Computer-assisted diagnosis in mammography: the R2 ImageChecker System in detection of spiculated lesions]. , 1998, Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift.

[10]  Y H Chang,et al.  Adequacy testing of training set sample sizes in the development of a computer-assisted diagnosis scheme. , 1997, Academic radiology.

[11]  M. Turco,et al.  Breast cancer update: Encouraging trends…. Many new questions , 1999 .

[12]  C. Metz,et al.  Maximum likelihood estimation of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves from continuously-distributed data. , 1998, Statistics in medicine.

[13]  C. Mettlin,et al.  Global breast cancer mortality statistics , 1999, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[14]  S. Zeger,et al.  Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models , 1986 .

[15]  N Karssemeijer,et al.  Automated detection of breast carcinomas not detected in a screening program. , 1998, Radiology.

[16]  N Moriyama,et al.  Computer-aided diagnosis in full digital mammography. , 1999, Investigative radiology.

[17]  S. Fields,et al.  Improved mammographic interpretation of masses using computer-aided diagnosis , 2000, European Radiology.

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

[19]  M. Reiser,et al.  Computerassistierte Analyse von Mammographien in der klinischen Routinediagnostik , 1998, Der Radiologe.

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

[21]  M. G. King,et al.  Visual Search Processes in Camouflage Detection , 1984 .

[22]  Robert M. Nishikawa,et al.  Variations in measured performance of CAD schemes due to database composition and scoring protocol , 1998, Medical Imaging.

[23]  K R Hoffman,et al.  In the next decade automated computer analysis will be an accepted sole method to separate "normal" from "abnormal" radiological images. , 1999, Medical physics.

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

[25]  B. Kröse,et al.  The control and speed of shifts of attention , 1989, Vision Research.

[26]  R E Hendrick,et al.  American College of Radiology guidelines for breast cancer screening. , 1998, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[27]  N. Petrick,et al.  Improvement of radiologists' characterization of mammographic masses by using computer-aided diagnosis: an ROC study. , 1999, Radiology.

[28]  Y H Chang,et al.  Computer-aided detection of clustered microcalcifications in digitized mammograms. , 1995, Academic radiology.

[29]  Y H Chang,et al.  On the reporting of mass contrast in CAD research. , 1996, Medical physics.

[30]  M. Giger,et al.  Improving breast cancer diagnosis with computer-aided diagnosis. , 1999, Academic radiology.

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

[32]  M. Giger,et al.  Computer vision and artificial intelligence in mammography. , 1994, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.