Assessing the stand-alone sensitivity of computer-aided detection with cancer cases from the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial.

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to assess the sensitivities and false-detection rates of two computer-aided detection (CADe) systems when applied to digital or film-screen mammograms in detecting the known breast cancer cases from the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) breast cancer screening population. MATERIALS AND METHODS Available film-screen and digital mammograms of 161 breast cancer cases from DMIST were analyzed by two CADe systems, iCAD Second-Look and R2 ImageChecker. Three experienced breast-imaging radiologists reviewed the CADe marks generated for each available cancer case, recording the number and locations of CADe marks and whether each CADe mark location corresponded with the known location of the cancer. RESULTS For the 161 cancer cases included in this study, the sensitivities of the DMIST reader without CAD were 0.43 (69/161, 95% CI 0.35-0.51) for digital and 0.41 (66/161, 0.33-0.49) for film-screen mammography. The sensitivities of iCAD were 0.74 (119/161, 0.66-0.81) for digital and 0.69 (111/161, 0.61-0.76) for film-screen mammography, both significantly higher than the DMIST study sensitivities (p < 0.0001 for both). The average number of false CADe marks per case of iCAD was 2.57 (SD, 1.92) for digital and 3.06(1.72) for film-screen mammography. The sensitivity of R2 was 0.74 (119/161, 0.66-0.81) for digital, and 0.60 (97/161, 0.52-0.68) for film-screen mammography, both significantly higher than the DMIST study sensitivities (p < 0.0001 for both). The average number of false CADe marks per case of R2 was 2.07 (1.57) for digital and 1.52 (1.45) for film-screen mammography. CONCLUSION Our results suggest the use of CADe in interpretation of digital and film-screen mammograms could lead to improvements in cancer detection.

[1]  Jean B. Cormack,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. , 2008, Radiology.

[2]  Per Skaane,et al.  Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program--the Oslo II Study. , 2004, Radiology.

[3]  Nico Karssemeijer,et al.  Learning from unbalanced data: A cascade-based approach for detecting clustered microcalcifications , 2014, Medical Image Anal..

[4]  K. Kinkel,et al.  Computer-aided detection (CAD) in mammography: does it help the junior or the senior radiologist? , 2005, European journal of radiology.

[5]  P. Skaane,et al.  Effect of computer-aided detection on independent double reading of paired screen-film and full-field digital screening mammograms. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[6]  Kyle J Myers,et al.  Investigation of reading mode and relative sensitivity as factors that influence reader performance when using computer-aided detection software. , 2009, Academic radiology.

[7]  Nico Karssemeijer,et al.  Breast cancer screening results 5 years after introduction of digital mammography in a population-based screening program. , 2009, Radiology.

[8]  Boel Heddson,et al.  Digital versus screen-film mammography: a retrospective comparison in a population-based screening program. , 2007, European journal of radiology.

[9]  Stefano Ciatto,et al.  Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[10]  T. Vehmas,et al.  Effect of computer-aided detection on mammographic performance: experimental study on readers with different levels of experience , 2006, Acta radiologica.

[11]  Jeffrey W Hoffmeister,et al.  Detection of breast cancer with full-field digital mammography and computer-aided detection. , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[12]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. , 2002, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[13]  P. Skaane,et al.  Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--observer performance study. , 2005, Radiology.

[14]  Per Skaane,et al.  Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--Oslo I study. , 2003, Radiology.

[15]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Diagnostic Performance of Digital versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening , 2006 .

[16]  K Doi,et al.  Effect of case selection on the performance of computer-aided detection schemes. , 1994, Medical physics.

[17]  J. Hoffmeister,et al.  Computer-aided detection system applied to full-field digital mammograms , 2010, Acta radiologica.

[18]  J M Lewin,et al.  Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. , 2001, Radiology.

[19]  P. Skaane.  Studies comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography in breast cancer screening: Updated review , 2009, Acta radiologica.

[20]  P. Skaane,et al.  Full-field digital mammography compared to screen film mammography in the prevalent round of a population-based screening programme: the Vestfold County Study , 2007, European Radiology.

[21]  Woo Kyung Moon,et al.  Screening mammography-detected cancers: sensitivity of a computer-aided detection system applied to full-field digital mammograms. , 2007, Radiology.

[22]  Constantine A Gatsonis,et al.  American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial: objectives and methodology. , 2005, Radiology.