Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Oct;20(10):2323-30.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-010-1821-8. Epub 2010 Jun 9.

Using computer-aided detection in mammography as a decision support

Maurice Samulski  1 , Rianne Hupse, Carla Boetes, Roel D M Mus, Gerard J den Heeten, Nico Karssemeijer
Affiliations

Using computer-aided detection in mammography as a decision support

Maurice Samulski et al. Eur Radiol. 2010 Oct.

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate an interactive computer-aided detection (CAD) system for reading mammograms to improve decision making.

Methods: A dedicated mammographic workstation has been developed in which readers can probe image locations for the presence of CAD information. If present, CAD findings are displayed with the computed malignancy rating. A reader study was conducted in which four screening radiologists and five non-radiologists participated to study the effect of this system on detection performance. The participants read 120 cases of which 40 cases had a malignant mass that was missed at the original screening. The readers read each mammogram both with and without CAD in separate sessions. Each reader reported localized findings and assigned a malignancy score per finding. Mean sensitivity was computed in an interval of false-positive fractions less than 10%.

Results: Mean sensitivity was 25.1% in the sessions without CAD and 34.8% in the CAD-assisted sessions. The increase in detection performance was significant (p = 0.012). Average reading time was 84.7 ± 61.5 s/case in the unaided sessions and was not significantly higher when interactive CAD was used (85.9 ± 57.8 s/case).

Conclusion: Interactive use of CAD in mammography may be more effective than traditional CAD for improving mass detection without affecting reading time.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The graphical user interface of the CAD workstation used in the observer experiments. The upper row shows prior mammograms and the lower row displays the current screening mammograms that have to be reported. In the case shown here, a reader reported a localized finding in both projections and is asked to assign a malignancy score between 0 and 100 to that finding. In the craniocaudal (CC) view, a CAD region was present at the reported location
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Average LROC curves obtained from the nine readers for the detection of cancers with and without using CAD. The false-positive fraction interval ranging from 0 to 0.1, where the mean correct localization fraction is computed, is highlighted in light yellow
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Average LROC curves obtained from the five non-radiologists
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Average LROC curves obtained from the four radiologists
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Mediolateral oblique mammographic views of a woman with an invasive ductal carcinoma indicated by the arrow. Seven of the nine readers correctly localized the cancer in both sessions, but rated their finding substantially more suspicious in the session with interactive CAD enabled, one reader only located the cancer correctly in the session where CAD was enabled, and one reader did assign a slightly lower rating to the cancer in the session with CAD
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
The same case as in Fig. 5 with the activated CAD region. The red contour and a CAD score close to zero indicate a high probability that this is a cancer
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Gilbert FJ, Astley SM, Gillan MG, Agbaje OF, Wallis MG, James J, Boggis CR, Duffy SW, CADET II Group Single reading with computer-aided detection for screening mammography. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:1675–1684. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0803545. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Morton MJ, Whaley DH, Brandt KR, Amrami KK. Screening mammograms: interpretation with computer-aided detection–prospective evaluation. Radiology. 2006;239:375–383. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2392042121. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dean JC, Ilvento CC. Improved cancer detection using computer-aided detection with diagnostic and screening mammography: prospective study of 104 cancers. Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187:20–28. doi: 10.2214/AJR.05.0111. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fenton JJ, Taplin SH, Carney PA, Abraham L, Sickles EA, D'Orsi C, Berns EACG, Hendrick RE, Barlow WE, Elmore JG. Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1399–1409. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa066099. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gur D, Stalder JS, Hardesty LA, Zheng B, Sumkin JH, Chough DM, Shindel BE, Rockette HE. Computer-aided detection performance in mammographic examination of masses: assessment. Radiology. 2004;233:418–423. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2332040277. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types