Single reading with computer-aided detection for screening mammography

被引:197
作者
Gilbert, Fiona J. [1 ]
Astley, Susan M. [2 ]
Gillan, Maureen G. C. [1 ]
Agbaje, Olorunsola F. [3 ]
Wallis, Matthew G. [4 ]
James, Jonathan [5 ]
Boggis, Caroline R. M. [6 ]
Duffy, Stephen W. [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Aberdeen, Aberdeen Biomed Imaging Ctr, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, Scotland
[2] Univ Manchester, Dept Imaging Sci & Biomed Engn, Manchester, Lancs, England
[3] Wolfson Inst Prevent Med, Dept Epidemiol Math & Stat, London, England
[4] Addenbrookes Hosp, Cambridge Breast Unit, Cambridge, England
[5] City Hosp Nottingham, Nottingham Breast Inst, Nottingham, England
[6] Wythenshawe Hosp, Nightingale Breast Screening Unit, Manchester M23 9LT, Lancs, England
关键词
D O I
10.1056/NEJMoa0803545
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: The sensitivity of screening mammography for the detection of small breast cancers is higher when the mammogram is read by two readers rather than by a single reader. We conducted a trial to determine whether the performance of a single reader using a computer-aided detection system would match the performance achieved by two readers. Methods: The trial was designed as an equivalence trial, with matched-pair comparisons between the cancer-detection rates achieved by single reading with computer-aided detection and those achieved by double reading. We randomly assigned 31,057 women undergoing routine screening by film mammography at three centers in England to double reading, single reading with computer-aided detection, or both double reading and single reading with computer-aided detection, at a ratio of 1:1:28. The primary outcome measures were the proportion of cancers detected according to regimen and the recall rates within the group receiving both reading regimens. Results: The proportion of cancers detected was 199 of 227 (87.7%) for double reading and 198 of 227 (87.2%) for single reading with computer-aided detection (P=0.89). The overall recall rates were 3.4% for double reading and 3.9% for single reading with computer-aided detection; the difference between the rates was small but significant (P<0.001). The estimated sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value for single reading with computer-aided detection were 87.2%, 96.9%, and 18.0%, respectively. The corresponding values for double reading were 87.7%, 97.4%, and 21.1%. There were no significant differences between the pathological attributes of tumors detected by single reading with computer-aided detection alone and those of tumors detected by double reading alone. Conclusions: Single reading with computer-aided detection could be an alternative to double reading and could improve the rate of detection of cancer from screening mammograms read by a single reader. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00450359.).
引用
收藏
页码:1675 / 1684
页数:10
相关论文
共 60 条
[31]   Comparison of computer-aided detection to double reading of screening mammograms: Review of 231,221 mammograms [J].
Gromet, Matthew .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2008, 190 (04) :854-859
[32]   Changes in breast cancer detection and mammography recall rates after the introduction of a computer-aided detection system [J].
Gur, D ;
Sumkin, JH ;
Rockette, HE ;
Ganott, M ;
Hakim, C ;
Hardesty, L ;
Poller, WR ;
Shah, R ;
Wallace, L .
JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2004, 96 (03) :185-190
[33]   Improving mammographic interpretation: Double reading and computer-aided diagnosis [J].
Helvie, Mark .
RADIOLOGIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2007, 45 (05) :801-+
[34]   Incorporating new technologies into clinical practice without evidence of effectiveness in prospective studies: Computer-aided detection (CAD) in breast screening reinforces the need for better initial evaluation - Preface [J].
Houssami, Nehmat ;
Given-Wilson, Rosalind .
BREAST, 2007, 16 (03) :219-221
[35]   Breast cancer: Effectiveness of computer-aided diagnosis - Observer study with independent database of mammograms [J].
Huo, ZM ;
Giger, ML ;
Vyborny, CJ ;
Metz, CE .
RADIOLOGY, 2002, 224 (02) :560-568
[36]   Computer-aided detection output on 172 subtle findings on normal mammograms previously obtained in women with breast cancer detected at follow-up screening mammography [J].
Ikeda, DM ;
Birdwell, RL ;
O'Shaughnessy, KF ;
Sickles, EA ;
Brenner, RJ .
RADIOLOGY, 2004, 230 (03) :811-819
[37]   Breast cancer detection rate: Designing imaging trials to demonstrate improvements [J].
Jiang, Yulei ;
Miglioretti, Diana L. ;
Metz, Charles E. ;
Schmidt, Robert A. .
RADIOLOGY, 2007, 243 (02) :360-367
[38]  
Jones B, 1996, BRIT MED J, V313, P550
[39]   Computer-aided detection versus independent double reading of masses on mammograms [J].
Karssemeijer, N ;
Otten, JDM ;
Verbeek, ALM ;
Groenewoud, JH ;
de Koning, HJ ;
Hendriks, JHCL ;
Holland, R .
RADIOLOGY, 2003, 227 (01) :192-200
[40]   Computer-aided detection in the United Kingdom National Breast Screening Programme: Prospective study [J].
Khoo, LAL ;
Taylor, P ;
Given-Wilson, RM .
RADIOLOGY, 2005, 237 (02) :444-449