Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18356428/ below:

Comparison of computer-aided detection to double reading of screening mammograms: review of 231,221 mammograms

Comparative Study

Affiliations

• ¹ Breast Imaging Section, Charlotte Radiology, P.A., 1701 East Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28203, USA. matthew.gromet@charlotteradiology.com

• PMID: 18356428
• DOI: 10.2214/AJR.07.2812

Item in Clipboard

Comparative Study

Matthew Gromet. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008 Apr.

• ¹ Breast Imaging Section, Charlotte Radiology, P.A., 1701 East Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28203, USA. matthew.gromet@charlotteradiology.com

• PMID: 18356428
• DOI: 10.2214/AJR.07.2812

Item in Clipboard

Objective: This study compares the efficacy of single reading with computer-aided detection (CAD) to double reading and also to the first reader (without CAD) in a double-reading program.

Materials and methods: A review was performed of 231,221 screening mammograms interpreted by experienced mammographers from 2001 through 2005 in a community-based mammography program. In 112,413 (48.6%), mammographers performed the first of two readings. In 118,808 (51.4%), they performed a single reading aided by CAD.

Results: For double reading, the first reader's recall rate was 10.2%; sensitivity, 81.4%; positive predictive value, as a percentage of positive screening mammograms resulting in a tissue diagnosis of cancer within 1 year (PPV(1)), 4.1%; and cancer detection rate, 4.12 per 1,000. After the double-reading process, the final recall rate was 11.9%; sensitivity, 88.0%; PPV(1), 3.7%; and cancer detection rate, 4.46 per 1,000. For single-reading with CAD, the recall rate was 10.6%; sensitivity, 90.4%; PPV(1), 3.9%; and cancer detection rate, 4.20 per 1,000. Statistically significant results included a lower recall rate with CAD compared with double reading (10.6% vs 11.9%, respectively; p < 0.0001); increased sensitivity with CAD compared with the first reader (90.4% vs 81.4%, p < 0.0001); and increased recall rate with CAD compared with the first reader (10.6% vs 10.2%, p < 0.0001).

Conclusion: Double reading increased sensitivity with a modest increase in the recall rate compared with single reading. Single reading with CAD, compared with double reading, resulted in a small, but not statistically significant, increase in sensitivity with a lower recall rate. Our results indicate that CAD enhances performance of a single reader, yielding increased sensitivity with only a small increase in recall rate.

PubMed Disclaimer

• Blinded comparison of computer-aided detection with human second reading in screening mammography.

  Georgian-Smith D, Moore RH, Halpern E, Yeh ED, Rafferty EA, D'Alessandro HA, Staffa M, Hall DA, McCarthy KA, Kopans DB. Georgian-Smith D, et al. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007 Nov;189(5):1135-41. doi: 10.2214/AJR.07.2393. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007. PMID: 17954651

• Invasive breast cancers detected by screening mammography: a detailed comparison of computer-aided detection-assisted single reading and double reading.

  Cawson JN, Nickson C, Amos A, Hill G, Whan AB, Kavanagh AM. Cawson JN, et al. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2009 Oct;53(5):442-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1754-9485.2009.02100.x. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2009. PMID: 19788479

• Comparison of standard and double reading and computer-aided detection (CAD) of interval cancers at prior negative screening mammograms: blind review.

  Ciatto S, Rosselli Del Turco M, Burke P, Visioli C, Paci E, Zappa M. Ciatto S, et al. Br J Cancer. 2003 Nov 3;89(9):1645-9. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6601356. Br J Cancer. 2003. PMID: 14583763 Free PMC article.

• Computer aids and human second reading as interventions in screening mammography: two systematic reviews to compare effects on cancer detection and recall rate.

  Taylor P, Potts HW. Taylor P, et al. Eur J Cancer. 2008 Apr;44(6):798-807. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.02.016. Epub 2008 Mar 18. Eur J Cancer. 2008. PMID: 18353630 Review.

• Early detection of breast cancer: overview of the evidence on computer-aided detection in mammography screening.

  Houssami N, Given-Wilson R, Ciatto S. Houssami N, et al. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2009 Apr;53(2):171-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1754-9485.2009.02062.x. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2009. PMID: 19527363 Review.

• Application of Imaging Technologies in Breast Cancer Detection: A Review Article.

  Lima ZS, Ebadi MR, Amjad G, Younesi L. Lima ZS, et al. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2019 Mar 14;7(5):838-848. doi: 10.3889/oamjms.2019.171. eCollection 2019 Mar 15. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2019. PMID: 30962849 Free PMC article. Review.

• "CADEAT": considerations on the use of CAD (computer-aided diagnosis) in mammography.

  Gruppo di studio GISMa-SIRM; Chersevani R, Ciatto S, Del Favero C, Frigerio A, Giordano L, Giuseppetti G, Naldoni C, Panizza P, Petrella M, Saguatti G. Gruppo di studio GISMa-SIRM, et al. Radiol Med. 2010 Jun;115(4):563-70. doi: 10.1007/s11547-010-0505-4. Epub 2010 Jan 15. Radiol Med. 2010. PMID: 20082226 English, Italian.

• Improving Accuracy and Efficiency with Concurrent Use of Artificial Intelligence for Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

  Conant EF, Toledano AY, Periaswamy S, Fotin SV, Go J, Boatsman JE, Hoffmeister JW. Conant EF, et al. Radiol Artif Intell. 2019 Jul 31;1(4):e180096. doi: 10.1148/ryai.2019180096. Radiol Artif Intell. 2019. PMID: 32076660 Free PMC article.

• A Semiautonomous Deep Learning System to Reduce False Positives in Screening Mammography.

  Pedemonte S, Tsue T, Mombourquette B, Truong Vu YN, Matthews T, Morales Hoil R, Shah M, Ghare N, Zingman-Daniels N, Holley S, Appleton CM, Su J, Wahl RL. Pedemonte S, et al. Radiol Artif Intell. 2024 May;6(3):e230033. doi: 10.1148/ryai.230033. Radiol Artif Intell. 2024. PMID: 38597785 Free PMC article.

• How do I screen patients for breast cancer?

  Krontiras H, Bramlett R, Umphrey H. Krontiras H, et al. Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2013 Mar;14(1):88-96. doi: 10.1007/s11864-012-0218-0. Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2013. PMID: 23315271

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.3