Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography.

PURPOSE To determine the false-negative rate in screening mammography, the capability of computer-aided detection (CAD) to identify these missed lesions, and whether or not CAD increases the radiologists' recall rate. MATERIALS AND METHODS All available screening mammograms that led to the detection of biopsy-proved cancer (n = 1,083) and the most recent corresponding prior mammograms (n = 427) were collected from 13 facilities. Panels of radiologists evaluated the retrospectively visible prior mammograms by means of blinded review. All mammograms were analyzed by a CAD system that marks features associated with cancer. The recall rates of 14 radiologists were prospectively measured before and after installation of the CAD system. RESULTS At retrospective review, 67% (286 of 427) of screening mammography-detected breast cancers were visible on the prior mammograms. At independent, blinded review by panels of radiologists, 27% (115 of 427) were interpreted as warranting recall on the basis of a statistical evaluation index; and the CAD system correctly marked 77% (89 of 115) of these cases. The original attending radiologists' sensitivity was 79% (427 of [427 + 115]). There was no statistically significant increase in the radiologists' recall rate when comparing the values before (8.3%) with those after (7.6%) installation of the CAD system. CONCLUSION The original attending radiologists had a false-negative rate of 21% (115 of [427 + 115]). CAD prompting could have potentially helped reduce this false-negative rate by 77% (89 of 115) without an increase in the recall rate.

[1]  F. Winsberg,et al.  Detection of Radiographic Abnormalities in Mammograms by Means of Optical Scanning and Computer Analysis , 1967 .

[2]  L. Skoog,et al.  Non-palpable invasive breast carcinomas from the Stockholm screening project. , 1989, Acta oncologica.

[3]  S. Wall,et al.  Breast cancer screening with mammography: overview of Swedish randomised trials , 1993, The Lancet.

[4]  J. Hendriks,et al.  Screening for breast cancer in nijmegen. report of 6 screening rounds, 1975–1986 , 1989, International journal of cancer.

[5]  L. Tabár,et al.  REDUCTION IN MORTALITY FROM BREAST CANCER AFTER MASS SCREENING WITH MAMMOGRAPHY Randomised Trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare , 1985, The Lancet.

[6]  C. Beam,et al.  Effect of human variability on independent double reading in screening mammography. , 1996, Academic radiology.

[7]  L. Fajardo,et al.  Previous mammograms in patients with impalpable breast carcinoma: retrospective vs blinded interpretation. 1993 ARRS President's Award. , 1993, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[8]  R. Warren,et al.  Mammography screening: an incremental cost effectiveness analysis of double versus single reading of mammograms , 1996, BMJ.

[9]  M. Pamilo,et al.  Double reading of mammography screening films--one radiologist or two? , 1993, Clinical radiology.

[10]  K. Kerlikowske,et al.  Likelihood ratios for modern screening mammography. Risk of breast cancer based on age and mammographic interpretation. , 1996, JAMA.

[11]  L. J. Burhenne,et al.  Interval breast cancers in the Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia: analysis and classification. , 1994, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[12]  D. Ikeda,et al.  Interval carcinomas in the Malmö Mammographic Screening Trial: radiographic appearance and prognostic considerations. , 1992, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[13]  A. Leitch,et al.  American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of breast cancer: Update 1997 , 1997, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[14]  K. Kerlikowske,et al.  Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. , 1998, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[15]  Hendrick Re.  Quality assurance in mammography. Accreditation, legislation, and compliance with quality assurance standards. , 1992 .

[16]  E A Sickles,et al.  Quality assurance. How to audit your own mammography practice. , 1992, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[17]  K. Kerlikowske,et al.  Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. , 1996, JAMA.

[18]  L. Tabár,et al.  SURVIVAL IN BREAST CANCER DIAGNOSED BETWEEN MAMMOGRAPHIC SCREENING EXAMINATIONS , 1986, The Lancet.

[19]  A. Miller,et al.  Physical examination. Its role as a single screening modality in the Canadian national breast screening study , 1990, Cancer.

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

[21]  M. Wallis,et al.  Classifying interval cancers. , 1995, Clinical radiology.

[22]  L. Tabár,et al.  The Swedish two county trial of mammographic screening for breast cancer: recent results and calculation of benefit. , 1989, Journal of epidemiology and community health.

[23]  C J Vyborny,et al.  Can computers help radiologists read mammograms? , 1994, Radiology.

[24]  A. Miller,et al.  Canadian National Breast Screening Study: assessment of technical quality by external review. , 1990, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[25]  S Ciatto,et al.  Independent Double Reading of Screening Mammograms , 1995, Journal of medical screening.

[26]  A. Miller,et al.  Canadian National Breast Screening Study: 1. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 40 to 49 years. , 1992, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[27]  L. Skoog,et al.  The general mammography screening program in Stockholm. Organisation and first-round results. , 1994, Acta oncologica.

[28]  M L Giger,et al.  Computer-aided diagnosis: development of automated schemes for quantitative analysis of radiographic images. , 1992, Seminars in ultrasound, CT, and MR.

[29]  Roland Holland,et al.  The current detectability of breast cancer in a mammographic screening program. A review of the previous mammograms of interval and screen‐detected cancers , 1993, Cancer.

[30]  L. Tabár,et al.  The Swedish two-county trial of mammographic screening for breast cancer: recent results on mortality and tumor characteristics. , 1992, Pathologie-biologie.

[31]  S. Feig,et al.  Increased benefit from shorter screening mammography intervals for women ages 40‐49 years , 1997, Cancer.

[32]  A. Mushlin,et al.  Estimating the accuracy of screening mammography: a meta-analysis. , 1998, American journal of preventive medicine.

[33]  S. Duffy,et al.  Comparison of single reading with double reading of mammograms, and change in effectiveness with experience. , 1995, The British journal of radiology.

[34]  L. Tabár,et al.  Efficacy of breast cancer screening by age. New results swedish two‐county trial , 1995, Cancer.

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

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

[37]  S Shapiro,et al.  Screening: Assessment of current studies , 1994, Cancer.

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