Dataset Information

Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital Screening Mammography With and Without Computer-Aided Detection.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Lehman CD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4836172 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital Screening Mammography With and Without Computer-Aided Detection.

Lehman Constance D CD Wellman Robert D RD Buist Diana S M DS Kerlikowske Karla K Tosteson Anna N A AN Miglioretti Diana L DL

JAMA internal medicine 20151101 11

<h4>Importance</h4>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.<h4>Objective</h4>To measure performance of di ...[more]

PMID: 26414882

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.

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:BackgroundThe diagnostic accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and digital mammography (DM) in breast cancer screening may vary per breast density subgroup. The purpose of this study was to evaluate which women, based on automatically assessed breast density subgroups, have the greatest benefit of DBT compared with DM in the prospective Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial.Materials and methodsThe prospective European, Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (n = 14,848, Jan. 27, 2010-Feb. 13, 2015) compared one-view DBT and two-view DM, with consensus meeting before recall. Breast density was assessed in this secondary analysis with the automatic software Laboratory for Individualized Breast Radiodensity Assessment. DBT and DM's diagnostic accuracies were compared by breast density quintiles of breast percent density (PD) and absolute dense area (DA) with confidence intervals (CI) and McNemar's test. The association between breast density and cancer detection was analyzed with logistic regression, adjusted for ages < 55 and ≥ 55 years and previous screening participation.ResultsIn total, 14,730 women (median age: 58 years; inter-quartile range = 16) were included in the analysis. Sensitivity was higher and specificity lower for DBT compared with DM for all density subgroups. The highest breast PD quintile showed the largest difference in sensitivity and specificity at 81.1% (95% CI 65.8-90.5) versus 43.2% (95% CI 28.7-59.1), p < .001 and 95.5% (95% CI 94.7-96.2) versus 97.2% (95% CI 96.6-97.8), p < 0.001, respectively. Breast PD quintile was also positively associated with cancer detected via DBT at odds ratio 1.24 (95% CI 1.09-1.42, p = 0.001).ConclusionWomen with the highest breast density had the greatest benefit from digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography with increased sensitivity at the cost of slightly lower specificity. These results may influence digital breast tomosynthesis's use in an individualized screening program stratified by, for instance, breast density.Trial registrationTrial registration at https://www.Clinicaltrialsgov : NCT01091545, registered March 24, 2010.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Collectively, an estimated 5% of the population have a genetic disease. Many of them feature characteristics that can be detected by facial phenotyping. Face2Gene CLINIC is an online app for facial phenotyping of patients with genetic syndromes. DeepGestalt, the neural network driving Face2Gene, automatically prioritizes syndrome suggestions based on ordinary patient photographs, potentially improving the diagnostic process. Hitherto, studies on DeepGestalt's quality highlighted its sensitivity in syndromic patients. However, determining the accuracy of a diagnostic methodology also requires testing of negative controls. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to evaluate DeepGestalt's accuracy with photos of individuals with and without a genetic syndrome. Moreover, we aimed to propose a machine learning-based framework for the automated differentiation of DeepGestalt's output on such images. METHODS:Frontal facial images of individuals with a diagnosis of a genetic syndrome (established clinically or molecularly) from a convenience sample were reanalyzed. Each photo was matched by age, sex, and ethnicity to a picture featuring an individual without a genetic syndrome. Absence of a facial gestalt suggestive of a genetic syndrome was determined by physicians working in medical genetics. Photos were selected from online reports or were taken by us for the purpose of this study. Facial phenotype was analyzed by DeepGestalt version 19.1.7, accessed via Face2Gene CLINIC. Furthermore, we designed linear support vector machines (SVMs) using Python 3.7 to automatically differentiate between the 2 classes of photographs based on DeepGestalt's result lists. RESULTS:We included photos of 323 patients diagnosed with 17 different genetic syndromes and matched those with an equal number of facial images without a genetic syndrome, analyzing a total of 646 pictures. We confirm DeepGestalt's high sensitivity (top 10 sensitivity: 295/323, 91%). DeepGestalt's syndrome suggestions in individuals without a craniofacially dysmorphic syndrome followed a nonrandom distribution. A total of 17 syndromes appeared in the top 30 suggestions of more than 50% of nondysmorphic images. DeepGestalt's top scores differed between the syndromic and control images (area under the receiver operating characteristic [AUROC] curve 0.72, 95% CI 0.68-0.76; P<.001). A linear SVM running on DeepGestalt's result vectors showed stronger differences (AUROC 0.89, 95% CI 0.87-0.92; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS:DeepGestalt fairly separates images of individuals with and without a genetic syndrome. This separation can be significantly improved by SVMs running on top of DeepGestalt, thus supporting the diagnostic process of patients with a genetic syndrome. Our findings facilitate the critical interpretation of DeepGestalt's results and may help enhance it and similar computer-aided facial phenotyping tools.

Project description:BackgroundChest radiography to diagnose and screen for pulmonary tuberculosis has limitations, especially due to inter-reader variability. Automating the interpretation has the potential to overcome this drawback and to deliver objective and reproducible results. The CAD4TB software is a computer-aided detection system that has shown promising preliminary findings. Evaluation studies in different settings are needed to assess diagnostic accuracy and practicability of use.MethodsCAD4TB was evaluated on chest radiographs of patients with symptoms suggestive of pulmonary tuberculosis enrolled in two cohort studies in Tanzania. All patients were characterized by sputum smear microscopy and culture including subsequent antigen or molecular confirmation of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (M.tb) to determine the reference standard. Chest radiographs were read by the software and two human readers, one expert reader and one clinical officer. The sensitivity and specificity of CAD4TB was depicted using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, the area under the curve calculated and the performance of the software compared to the results of human readers.ResultsOf 861 study participants, 194 (23%) were culture-positive for M.tb. The area under the ROC curve of CAD4TB for the detection of culture-positive pulmonary tuberculosis was 0.84 (95% CI 0.80-0.88). CAD4TB was significantly more accurate for the discrimination of smear-positive cases against non TB patients than for smear-negative cases (p-value<0.01). It differentiated better between TB cases and non TB patients among HIV-negative compared to HIV-positive individuals (p<0.01). CAD4TB significantly outperformed the clinical officer, but did not reach the accuracy of the expert reader (p?=?0.02), for a tuberculosis specific reading threshold.ConclusionCAD4TB accurately distinguished between the chest radiographs of culture-positive TB cases and controls. Further studies on cost-effectiveness, operational and ethical aspects should determine its place in diagnostic and screening algorithms.

Project description:To design a computer-aided detection (CADe) system for clustered microcalcifications in reconstructed digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) volumes and to perform a preliminary evaluation of the CADe system.IRB approval and informed consent were obtained in this study. A data set of two-view DBT of 72 breasts containing microcalcification clusters was collected from 72 subjects who were scheduled to undergo breast biopsy. Based on tissue sampling results, 17 cases had breast cancer and 55 were benign. A separate data set of two-view DBT of 38 breasts free of clustered microcalcifications from 38 subjects was collected to independently estimate the number of false-positives (FPs) generated by the CADe system. A radiologist experienced in breast imaging marked the biopsied cluster of microcalcifications with a 3D bounding box using all available clinical and imaging information. A CADe system was designed to detect microcalcification clusters in the reconstructed volume. The system consisted of prescreening, clustering, and false-positive reduction stages. In the prescreening stage, the conspicuity of microcalcification-like objects was increased by an enhancement-modulated 3D calcification response function. An iterative thresholding and 3D object growing method was used to detect cluster seed objects, which were used as potential centers of microcalcification clusters. In the cluster detection stage, microcalcification candidates were identified using a second iterative thresholding procedure, which was applied to the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) enhanced image voxels with a positive calcification response. Starting with each cluster seed object as the initial cluster center, a dynamic clustering algorithm formed a cluster candidate by including microcalcification candidates within a 3D neighborhood of the cluster seed object that satisfied the clustering criteria. The number, size, and SNR of the microcalcifications in a cluster candidate and the cluster shape were used to reduce the number of FPs.The prescreening stage detected a cluster seed object in 94% of the biopsied microcalcification clusters at a threshold of 100 cluster seed objects per DBT volume. After clustering, the detection sensitivity was 90% at 15 marks per DBT volume. After FP reduction, at 85% sensitivity, the average number of FPs estimated using the data set containing microcalcification clusters was 3.8 per DBT volume, and that estimated using the data set free of microcalcification clusters was 3.4. The detection performance for malignant microcalcification clusters was superior to that for benign clusters.Our study indicates the feasibility of the 3D approach to the detection of clustered microcalcifications in DBT and that the newly designed enhancement-modulated 3D calcification response function is promising for prescreening. Further work is needed to assess the generalizability of our approach and to improve its performance.

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:BackgroundColonoscopy reduces the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) by allowing detection and resection of neoplastic polyps. Evidence shows that many small polyps are missed on a single colonoscopy. There has been a successful adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to tackle the issues around missed polyps and as tools to increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR).ObjectiveThe aim of this review was to examine the diagnostic accuracy of AI-based technologies in assessing colorectal polyps.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was undertaken using the databases of Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed. Studies reporting the use of computer-aided diagnosis for polyp detection or characterization during colonoscopy were included. Independent proportions and their differences were calculated and pooled through DerSimonian and Laird random-effects modeling.ResultsA total of 48 studies were included. The meta-analysis showed a significant increase in pooled polyp detection rate in patients with the use of AI for polyp detection during colonoscopy compared with patients who had standard colonoscopy (odds ratio [OR] 1.75, 95% CI 1.56-1.96; P<.001). When comparing patients undergoing colonoscopy with the use of AI to those without, there was also a significant increase in ADR (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.32-1.77; P<.001).ConclusionsWith the aid of machine learning, there is potential to improve ADR and, consequently, reduce the incidence of CRC. The current generation of AI-based systems demonstrate impressive accuracy for the detection and characterization of colorectal polyps. However, this is an evolving field and before its adoption into a clinical setting, AI systems must prove worthy to patients and clinicians.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020169786; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020169786.

Dataset Information

Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital Screening Mammography With and Without Computer-Aided Detection.

Publications

Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital Screening Mammography With and Without Computer-Aided Detection.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets