Dataset Information

Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography.

ABSTRACT: Computer-aided detection identifies suspicious findings on mammograms to assist radiologists. Since the Food and Drug Administration approved the technology in 1998, it has been disseminated into practice, but its effect on the accuracy of interpretation is unclear.We determined the association between the use of computer-aided detection at mammography facilities and the performance of screening mammography from 1998 through 2002 at 43 facilities in three states. We had complete data for 222,135 women (a total of 429,345 mammograms), including 2351 women who received a diagnosis of breast cancer within 1 year after screening. We calculated the specificity, sensitivity, and positive predictive value of screening mammography with and without computer-aided detection, as well as the rates of biopsy and breast-cancer detection and the overall accuracy, measured as the area under the receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curve.Seven facilities (16%) implemented computer-aided detection during the study period. Diagnostic specificity decreased from 90.2% before implementation to 87.2% after implementation (P<0.001), the positive predictive value decreased from 4.1% to 3.2% (P=0.01), and the rate of biopsy increased by 19.7% (P<0.001). The increase in sensitivity from 80.4% before implementation of computer-aided detection to 84.0% after implementation was not significant (P=0.32). The change in the cancer-detection rate (including invasive breast cancers and ductal carcinomas in situ) was not significant (4.15 cases per 1000 screening mammograms before implementation and 4.20 cases after implementation, P=0.90). Analyses of data from all 43 facilities showed that the use of computer-aided detection was associated with significantly lower overall accuracy than was nonuse (area under the ROC curve, 0.871 vs. 0.919; P=0.005).The use of computer-aided detection is associated with reduced accuracy of interpretation of screening mammograms. The increased rate of biopsy with the use of computer-aided detection is not clearly associated with improved detection of invasive breast cancer.

SUBMITTER: Fenton JJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3182841 | biostudies-literature | 2007 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography.

Fenton Joshua J JJ Taplin Stephen H SH Carney Patricia A PA Abraham Linn L Sickles Edward A EA D'Orsi Carl C Berns Eric A EA Cutter Gary G Hendrick R Edward RE Barlow William E WE Elmore Joann G JG

The New England journal of medicine 20070401 14

<h4>Background</h4>Computer-aided detection identifies suspicious findings on mammograms to assist radiologists. Since the Food and Drug Administration approved the technology in 1998, it has been disseminated into practice, but its effect on the accuracy of interpretation is unclear.<h4>Methods</h4>We determined the association between the use of computer-aided detection at mammography facilities and the performance of screening mammography from 1998 through 2002 at 43 facilities in three state ...[more]

PMID: 17409321

Similar Datasets

Project description:After the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved computer-aided detection (CAD) for mammography in 1998, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) provided increased payment in 2002, CAD technology disseminated rapidly. Despite sparse evidence that CAD improves accuracy of mammographic interpretations and costs over $400 million a year, CAD is currently used for most screening mammograms in the United States.To measure performance of digital screening mammography with and without CAD in US community practice.We compared the accuracy of digital screening mammography interpreted with (n = 495 818) vs without (n = 129 807) CAD from 2003 through 2009 in 323 973 women. Mammograms were interpreted by 271 radiologists from 66 facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Linkage with tumor registries identified 3159 breast cancers in 323 973 women within 1 year of the screening.Mammography performance (sensitivity, specificity, and screen-detected and interval cancers per 1000 women) was modeled using logistic regression with radiologist-specific random effects to account for correlation among examinations interpreted by the same radiologist, adjusting for patient age, race/ethnicity, time since prior mammogram, examination year, and registry. Conditional logistic regression was used to compare performance among 107 radiologists who interpreted mammograms both with and without CAD.Screening performance was not improved with CAD on any metric assessed. Mammography sensitivity was 85.3% (95% CI, 83.6%-86.9%) with and 87.3% (95% CI, 84.5%-89.7%) without CAD. Specificity was 91.6% (95% CI, 91.0%-92.2%) with and 91.4% (95% CI, 90.6%-92.0%) without CAD. There was no difference in cancer detection rate (4.1 in 1000 women screened with and without CAD). Computer-aided detection did not improve intraradiologist performance. Sensitivity was significantly decreased for mammograms interpreted with vs without CAD in the subset of radiologists who interpreted both with and without CAD (odds ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.29-0.97).Computer-aided detection does not improve diagnostic accuracy of mammography. These results suggest that insurers pay more for CAD with no established benefit to women.

Project description:To improve the performance of a computer-aided detection (CAD) system for mass detection by using four-view information in screening mammography.The authors developed a four-view CAD system that emulates radiologists' reading by using the craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique views of the ipsilateral breast to reduce false positives (FPs) and the corresponding views of the contralateral breast to detect asymmetry. The CAD system consists of four major components: (1) Initial detection of breast masses on individual views, (2) information fusion of the ipsilateral views of the breast (referred to as two-view analysis), (3) information fusion of the corresponding views of the contralateral breast (referred to as bilateral analysis), and (4) fusion of the four-view information with a decision tree. The authors collected two data sets for training and testing of the CAD system: A mass set containing 389 patients with 389 biopsy-proven masses and a normal set containing 200 normal subjects. All cases had four-view mammograms. The true locations of the masses on the mammograms were identified by an experienced MQSA radiologist. The authors randomly divided the mass set into two independent sets for cross validation training and testing. The overall test performance was assessed by averaging the free response receiver operating characteristic (FROC) curves of the two test subsets. The FP rates during the FROC analysis were estimated by using the normal set only. The jackknife free-response ROC (JAFROC) method was used to estimate the statistical significance of the difference between the test FROC curves obtained with the single-view and the four-view CAD systems.Using the single-view CAD system, the breast-based test sensitivities were 58% and 77% at the FP rates of 0.5 and 1.0 per image, respectively. With the four-view CAD system, the breast-based test sensitivities were improved to 76% and 87% at the corresponding FP rates, respectively. The improvement was found to be statistically significant (p < 0.0001) by JAFROC analysis.The four-view information fusion approach that emulates radiologists' reading strategy significantly improves the performance of breast mass detection of the CAD system in comparison with the single-view approach.

Project description:BackgroundWith the growth of machine learning applications, the practice of medicine is evolving. Computer-aided detection (CAD) is a software technology that has become widespread in radiology practices, particularly in breast cancer screening for improving detection rates at earlier stages. Many studies have investigated the diagnostic accuracy of CAD, but its implementation in clinical settings has been largely overlooked.ObjectiveThe aim of this scoping review was to summarize recent literature on the adoption and implementation of CAD during breast cancer screening by radiologists and to describe barriers and facilitators for CAD use.MethodsThe MEDLINE database was searched for English, peer-reviewed articles that described CAD implementation, including barriers or facilitators, in breast cancer screening and were published between January 2010 and March 2018. Articles describing the diagnostic accuracy of CAD for breast cancer detection were excluded. The search returned 526 citations, which were reviewed in duplicate through abstract and full-text screening. Reference lists and cited references in the included studies were reviewed.ResultsA total of nine articles met the inclusion criteria. The included articles showed that there is a tradeoff between the facilitators and barriers for CAD use. Facilitators for CAD use were improved breast cancer detection rates, increased profitability of breast imaging, and time saved by replacing double reading. Identified barriers were less favorable perceptions of CAD compared to double reading by radiologists, an increase in recall rates of patients for further testing, increased costs, and unclear effect on patient outcomes.ConclusionsThere is a gap in the literature between CAD's well-established diagnostic accuracy and its implementation and use by radiologists. Generally, the perceptions of radiologists have not been considered and details of implementation approaches for adoption of CAD have not been reported. The cost-effectiveness of CAD has not been well established for breast cancer screening in various populations. Further research is needed on how to best facilitate CAD in radiology practices in order to optimize patient outcomes, and the views of radiologists need to be better considered when advancing CAD use.

Project description:To examine whether U.S. radiologists' interpretive volume affects their screening mammography performance.Annual interpretive volume measures (total, screening, diagnostic, and screening focus [ratio of screening to diagnostic mammograms]) were collected for 120 radiologists in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) who interpreted 783?965 screening mammograms from 2002 to 2006. Volume measures in 1 year were examined by using multivariate logistic regression relative to screening sensitivity, false-positive rates, and cancer detection rate the next year. BCSC registries and the Statistical Coordinating Center received institutional review board approval for active or passive consenting processes and a Federal Certificate of Confidentiality and other protections for participating women, physicians, and facilities. All procedures were compliant with the terms of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.Mean sensitivity was 85.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 83.7%, 86.6%) and was significantly lower for radiologists with a greater screening focus (P = .023) but did not significantly differ by total (P = .47), screening (P = .33), or diagnostic (P = .23) volume. The mean false-positive rate was 9.1% (95% CI: 8.1%, 10.1%), with rates significantly higher for radiologists who had the lowest total (P = .008) and screening (P = .015) volumes. Radiologists with low diagnostic volume (P = .004 and P = .008) and a greater screening focus (P = .003 and P = .002) had significantly lower false-positive and cancer detection rates, respectively. Median invasive tumor size and proportion of cancers detected at early stages did not vary by volume.Increasing minimum interpretive volume requirements in the United States while adding a minimal requirement for diagnostic interpretation could reduce the number of false-positive work-ups without hindering cancer detection. These results provide detailed associations between mammography volumes and performance for policymakers to consider along with workforce, practice organization, and access issues and radiologist experience when reevaluating requirements.

Dataset Information

Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography.

Publications

Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets