Computer-aided detection in the United Kingdom National Breast Screening Programme: Prospective study

被引:107
作者
Khoo, LAL
Taylor, P
Given-Wilson, RM
机构
[1] St George Hosp, Dept Radiol, London SW17 0QT, England
[2] UCL Royal Free & Univ Coll Med Sch, London, England
关键词
D O I
10.1148/radiol.2372041362
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
PURPOSE: To evaluate prospectively the recall and cancer detection rates with and without computer-aided detection (CAD) in the United Kingdom National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study had appropriate ethics committee approval. Informed consent was not required; however, patients were informed that their mammograms might be used in research efforts, and all patients agreed to participate. Mammograms obtained in 6111 women (mean age, 58.4 years) undergoing routine screening every 3 years were analyzed with a CAD system. Mammograms were independently double read. Twelve readers participated. Readers recorded an initial evaluation, viewed the CAD prompts, and recorded a final evaluation. Recall to assessment was decided after arbitration. Sensitivities were calculated for single reading, single reading with CAD, and double reading, as a proportion of the total number of cancers detected by using double reading with CAD. RESULTS: A total of 62 cancers were detected in 61 women. CAD prompted 51 (84%) of 61 radiographically detected cancers. Of 12 cancers missed on single reading, nine were correctly prompted; however, seven prompts were overruled by the reader. Sensitivity of single reading was 90.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 83.0%, 95.0%), single reading with CAD was 91.5% (95% CI: 85.0%,96.0%), and double reading without CAD was 98.4% (95% CI: 91.0%, 100%). Cancer detection rate was 1%. Recall to assessment rate was 6.1%, with an increase of 5.8% because of CAD. Average time required, per reader, to read a case was 25 seconds without CAD and 45 seconds with CAD. CONCLUSION: CAD increases sensitivity of single reading by 1.3%, whereas double reading increases sensitivity by 8.2%. (c) RSNA, 2005.
引用
收藏
页码:444 / 449
页数:6
相关论文
共 22 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2002, BREAST CANC SCREEN
[2]  
Bandodkar P, 2002, RADIOLOGY, V225, P458
[3]   Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists - Findings from a national sample [J].
Beam, CA ;
Layde, PM ;
Sullivan, DC .
ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1996, 156 (02) :209-213
[4]   Observer variability in cancer detection during routine repeat (incident) mammographic screening in a study of two versus one view mammography [J].
Blanks, RG ;
Wallis, MG ;
Given-Wilson, RM .
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCREENING, 1999, 6 (03) :152-158
[5]   A comparison of cancer detection rates achieved by breast cancer screening programmes by number of readers, for one and two view mammography: results from the UK National Health Service breast screening programme [J].
Blanks, RG ;
Wallis, MG ;
Moss, SM .
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCREENING, 1998, 5 (04) :195-201
[6]   Improvement in sensitivity of screening mammography with computer-aided detection: A multiinstitutional trial [J].
Brem, RF ;
Baum, J ;
Lechner, M ;
Kaplan, S ;
Souders, S ;
Naul, LG ;
Hoffmeister, J .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2003, 181 (03) :687-693
[7]  
Burhenne LJW, 2000, RADIOLOGY, V215, P554
[8]  
Cupples TE, 2001, RADIOLOGY, V221, P520
[9]   Computer-aided detection: There is no free lunch [J].
D'Orsi, CJ .
RADIOLOGY, 2001, 221 (03) :585-586
[10]   Computer-aided detection of breast cancer: Has promise outstripped performance? [J].
Elmore, JG ;
Carney, PA .
JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2004, 96 (03) :162-163