Comparing signal-based and case-based methodologies for CAD assessment in a detection task

We are investigating the potential for differences in study conclusions when assessing the estimated impact of a computer-aided detection (CAD) system on readers' performance using a signal-based performance analysis derived from Free-response Receiver Operating Characteristics (FROC) versus a case-based performance analysis derived from Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) analysis. To consider this question, we utilized reader data from a CAD assessment study based on 100 mammographic background images to which fixed-size and fixed-intensity Gaussian signals were added, generating a low- and high-intensity set. The study thus allowed CAD assessment in two situations: when CAD sensitivity was 1) superior or 2) equivalent or lower than the average reader. Seven readers were asked to review each set using CAD in both second-reader and concurrent modes. Signal-based detection results were analyzed using the area under the FROC curve below 0.5 false positives per image. Case-based decision results were analyzed using the area under the parametric ROC curve. The results were consistent between the signal-based and case-based analyses for the low-intensity set, suggesting that CAD in both reading modes can increase reader signal-based detection and case-based decision accuracies. For the high-intensity set, the signal-based and case-based analysis suggested different conclusions regarding the utility of CAD, although neither analysis resulted in statistical significance.

[1]  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.

[2]  Robert Tibshirani,et al.  Bootstrap Methods for Standard Errors, Confidence Intervals, and Other Measures of Statistical Accuracy , 1986 .

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

[4]  Frank W. Samuelson,et al.  Comparing image detection algorithms using resampling , 2006, 3rd IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: Nano to Macro, 2006..

[5]  Frank W. Samuelson,et al.  Observer evaluation of computer-aided detection: second reader versus concurrent reader scenario , 2007, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[6]  Dennis G. Fryback,et al.  The Efficacy of Diagnostic Imaging , 1991, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

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

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

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

[10]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Assessment of medical imaging systems and computer aids: a tutorial review. , 2007, Academic radiology.

[11]  Andrew Smart,et al.  A multi-dimensional model of clinical utility. , 2006, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[12]  Priscilla J Slanetz,et al.  Prospective assessment of computer-aided detection in interpretation of screening mammography. , 2006, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[13]  Dev P. Chakraborty,et al.  The FROC, AFROC and DROC Variants of the ROC Analysis , 2000 .

[14]  A. Malich,et al.  CAD for mammography: the technique, results, current role and further developments , 2006, European Radiology.

[15]  Dev P Chakraborty,et al.  Observer studies involving detection and localization: modeling, analysis, and validation. , 2004, Medical physics.