Top

European Radiology

Published in:

Open Access 01-10-2010 | Breast

Using computer-aided detection in mammography as a decision support

Authors: Maurice Samulski, Rianne Hupse, Carla Boetes, Roel D. M. Mus, Gerard J. den Heeten, Nico Karssemeijer

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 10/2010

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate an interactive computer-aided detection (CAD) system for reading mammograms to improve decision making.

Methods:

A dedicated mammographic workstation has been developed in which readers can probe image locations for the presence of CAD information. If present, CAD findings are displayed with the computed malignancy rating. A reader study was conducted in which four screening radiologists and five non-radiologists participated to study the effect of this system on detection performance. The participants read 120 cases of which 40 cases had a malignant mass that was missed at the original screening. The readers read each mammogram both with and without CAD in separate sessions. Each reader reported localized findings and assigned a malignancy score per finding. Mean sensitivity was computed in an interval of false-positive fractions less than 10%.

Results:

Mean sensitivity was 25.1% in the sessions without CAD and 34.8% in the CAD-assisted sessions. The increase in detection performance was significant (p = 0.012). Average reading time was 84.7 ± 61.5 s/case in the unaided sessions and was not significantly higher when interactive CAD was used (85.9 ± 57.8 s/case).

Conclusion:

Interactive use of CAD in mammography may be more effective than traditional CAD for improving mass detection without affecting reading time.

Gilbert FJ, Astley SM, Gillan MG, Agbaje OF, Wallis MG, James J, Boggis CR, Duffy SW, CADET II Group (2008) Single reading with computer-aided detection for screening mammography. N Engl J Med 359:1675–1684. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0803545 CrossRefPubMed

Morton MJ, Whaley DH, Brandt KR, Amrami KK (2006) Screening mammograms: interpretation with computer-aided detection–prospective evaluation. Radiology 239:375–383. doi:10.1148/radiol.2392042121 CrossRefPubMed

Dean JC, Ilvento CC (2006) Improved cancer detection using computer-aided detection with diagnostic and screening mammography: prospective study of 104 cancers. Am J Roentgenol 187:20–28. doi:10.2214/AJR.05.0111 CrossRef

Fenton JJ, Taplin SH, Carney PA, Abraham L, Sickles EA, D'Orsi C, Berns EACG, Hendrick RE, Barlow WE, Elmore JG (2007) Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography. N Engl J Med 356:1399–1409. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa066099 CrossRefPubMed

Gur D, Stalder JS, Hardesty LA, Zheng B, Sumkin JH, Chough DM, Shindel BE, Rockette HE (2004) Computer-aided detection performance in mammographic examination of masses: assessment. Radiology 233:418–423. doi:10.1148/radiol.2332040277 CrossRefPubMed

Houssami N, Given-Wilson R, Ciatto S (2009) Early detection of breast cancer: overview of the evidence on computer-aided detection in mammography screening. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 53:171–176. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9485.2009.02062.x CrossRefPubMed

Alberdi E, Povyakalo AA, Strigini L, Ayton P, Given-Wilson R (2008) CAD in mammography: lesion-level versus case-level analysis of the effects of prompts on human decisions. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 3:115–122. doi:10.1007/s11548-008-0213-x CrossRef

Taplin SH, Rutter CM, Lehman CD (2006) Testing the effect of computer-assisted detection on interpretive performance in screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:1475. doi:10.2214/AJR.05.0940 CrossRefPubMed

Karssemeijer N, Otten JD, Rijken H, Holland R (2006) Computer aided detection of masses in mammograms as decision support. Br J Radiol 79:S123–S126. doi:10.1259/bjr/37622515 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Karssemeijer N, Otten JD, Verbeek AL, Groenewoud JH, de Koning HJ, Hendriks JH, Holland R (2003) Computer-aided detection versus independent double reading of masses on mammograms. Radiology 227:192–200. doi:10.1148/radiol.2271011962 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Manning D, Ethell S, Donovan T (2004) Categories of observer error from eye tracking and AFROC data. In: Chakraborty DP, Eckstein MP (eds) Proc SPIE: medical imaging 2004— image perception, observer performance, and technology assessment. vol 5372. Bellingham, Wash, pp 90–99. doi:10.1117/12.533489

12.

Blanks RG, Wallis MG, Given-Wilson RM (1999) Observer variability in cancer detection during routine repeat (incident) mammographic screening in a study of two versus one view mammography. J Med Screen 6:152–158. doi:10.1136/jms.6.3.152 PubMed

13.

Khoo LAL, Taylor P, Given-Wilson RM (2005) Computer-aided detection in the United Kingdom National Breast Screening Programme: prospective study. Radiology 237:444–449. doi:10.1148/radiol.2372041362 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Garvican L, Field S (2001) A pilot evaluation of the R2 image checker system and users’ response in the detection of interval breast cancers on previous screening films. Clin Radiol 10:833–837. doi:10.1053/crad.2001.0776 CrossRef

15.

Alberdi E, Povyakalo A, Strigini L, Ayton P, Hartswood M, Procter R, Slack R (2005) Use of computer-aided detection (CAD) tools in screening mammography: a multidisciplinary investigation. Br J Radiol 78:S31–S40. doi:10.1259/bjr/37646417 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Warren Burhenne LJ, Wood SA, D'Orsi CJ, Feig SA, Kopans DB, O'Shaughnessy KF, Sickles EA, Tabar L, Vyborny CJ, Castellino RA (2000) Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography. Radiology 215:554–562PubMed

17.

Taylor P, Potts HWW (2008) Computer aids and human second reading as interventions in screening mammography: two systematic reviews to compare effects on cancer detection and recall rate. Eur J Cancer 44:798–807. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2008.02.016 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Nishikawa RM (2007) Current status and future directions of computer-aided diagnosis in mammography. Comput Med Imaging Graph 31:224–235. doi:10.1016/j.compmedimag.2007.02.009 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Taylor P, Given-Wilson R, Champness J, Potts HW, Johnston K (2004) Assessing the impact of CAD on the sensitivity and specificity of film readers. Clin Radiol 59:1099–1105. doi:10.1016/j.crad.2004.04.017 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Gilbert FJ, Astley SM, Boggis CR, McGee MA, Griffiths PM, Duffy SW, Agbaje OF, Gillan MG, Wilson M, Jain AK, Barr N, Beetles UM, Griffiths MA, Johnson J, Roberts RM, Deans HE, Duncan KA, Iyengar G (2008) Variable size cad prompts and mammography film reader decisions. Breast Cancer Res 10:R72. doi:10.1186/bcr2137 CrossRefPubMed

21.

Karssemeijer N, Hupse A, Samulski M, Kallenberg M, Boetes C, Heeten G (2008) An interactive computer aided decision support system for detection of masses in mammograms. In: Krupinski EA (ed) Lect notes comput sci. 5116. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 273–278. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-70538-3_38

22.

Taylor P, Champness J, Given-Wilson R, Johnston K, Potts HW (2005) Impact of computer-aided detection prompts on the sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography. Health Technol Assess 9:1–70. doi:10.3310/hta9060 PubMed

23.

Roelofs AA, van Woudenberg S, Hendriks JH, Evertsz CJ, Karssemeijer N (2004) Effects of computer-aided diagnosis on radiologists’ detection of breast masses. In: Pisano E (ed) Proceedings of the seventh international workshop on digital mammography. Chapel Hill, NC, pp 219–224

24.

Kamitani T, Yabuuchi H, Soeda H, Matsuo Y, Okafuji T, Sakai S, Furuya A, Hatakenaka M, Ishii N, Honda H (2007) Detection of masses and microcalcifications of breast cancer on digital mammograms: comparison among hard-copy film, 3-megapixel liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors and 5-megapixel LCD monitors: an observer performance study. Eur Radiol 17:1365–1371. doi:10.1007/s00330-006-0452-6 CrossRefPubMed

25.

Gur D, Bandos AI, Cohen CS, Hakim CM, Hardesty LA, Ganott MA, Perrin RL, Poller WR, Shah R, Sumkin JH, Wallace LP, Rockette HE (2008) The “laboratory” effect: comparing radiologists' performance and variability during prospective clinical and laboratory mammography interpretations. Radiology 249:47. doi:10.1148/radiol.2491072025 CrossRefPubMed

Title: Using computer-aided detection in mammography as a decision support
Authors: Maurice Samulski
Rianne Hupse
Carla Boetes
Roel D. M. Mus
Gerard J. den Heeten
Nico Karssemeijer
Publication date: 01-10-2010
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: European Radiology / Issue 10/2010
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1821-8

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Using computer-aided detection in mammography as a decision support

Abstract

Objective:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusion:

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusion:

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 10/2010

Size, shape and age-related changes of the mandibular condyle during childhood

Uterine artery embolisation versus hysterectomy for leiomyomas: primary and 2-year follow-up results of a randomised prospective clinical trial

Low-dose prospective ECG-triggering dual-source CT angiography in infants and children with complex congenital heart disease: first experience

Does digital mammography in a decentralized breast cancer screening program lead to screening performance parameters comparable with film-screen mammography?

Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced magnetic resonance images of hepatocellular carcinoma: correlation with histological grading and portal blood flow

Optimising diffusion-weighted imaging in the abdomen and pelvis: comparison of image quality between monopolar and bipolar single-shot spin-echo echo-planar sequences