Clinical Radiology
Volume 64, Issue 1 , Pages 46-51 , January 2009

Does computer-aided detection have a role in the arbitration of discordant double-reading opinions in a breast-screening programme?

  • J.J. James

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationGuarantor and correspondent: J.J. James, Nottingham Breast Institute, Nottingham City Hospital, Hucknall Road, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK. Tel.: +44 115 9627725; fax: +44 115 9627707.
    • ,
  • E.J. Cornford

Received 18 April 2008 ,Revised 30 June 2008 ,Accepted 8 July 2008.

References 

  1. Blanks RG, Wallis MG, Moss SM. A comparison of cancer detection rates achieved by cancer screening programmes by number of readers, for one and two view mammography: results from the UK National Health Service breast screening programme. J Med Screen. 1998;5:195–201
  2. Cornford EJ, Evans AJ, James JJ, et al. The pathological and radiological features of screen-detected breast cancers diagnosed following discordant double reading opinions. Clinical Radiol. 2005;60:1182–1187
  3. Khoo L, Taylor P, Given-Wilson RM. Computer-aided detection in the United Kingdom breast screening programme: prospective study. Radiology. 2005;237:444–449
  4. Gilbert FJ, Astley SM, McGee MA, et al. Single reading with computer-aided detection and double reading of screening mammograms in the United Kingdom national breast screening program. Radiology. 2006;241:47–53
  5. Fenton JJ, Taplin SH, Carney P, et al. Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1399–1409
  6. Bennett RL, Blanks RG, Moss SM. Does the accuracy of single reading with CAD (computer-aided detection) compare with that of double reading? A review of the literature. Clin Radiol. 2006;61:1023–1028
  7. McNemar Q. Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages. Psychometrika. 1947;12:153–157
  8. Harvey SC, Geller B, Oppenheimer RG, et al. Increase in cancer detection and recall rates with independent double interpretation of screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180:1461–1467
  9. Jiang YL, Nishikawa RM, Schmidt RA, et al. Improving breast cancer diagnosis with computer-aided diagnosis. Acad Radiol. 1999;6:22–33
  10. Chan HP, Sahiner B, Helvie MA, et al. Improvement of radiologists' characterisation of mammographic masses by using computer-aided diagnosis: an ROC study. Radiology. 1999;212:817–827
  11. Veldkamp WJH, Karssemeijer N, Otten JD, et al. Automated classification of clustered microcalcifications into malignant and benign types. Med Phys. 2000;27:2600–2608
  12. Karssemeijer N, Otten JDM, Verbeek ALM, et al. Computed-aided detection versus independent double reading of masses on mammograms. Radiology. 2003;227:192–200
  13. Garvican L, Field S. A pilot evaluation of the R2 Image-Checker system and users' response in the detection of interval breast cancers on previous screening films. Clin Radiol. 2001;56:833–837
  14. Warren Burhenne LJ, Wood S, D'Orsi C, et al. Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography. Radiology. 2000;215:554–562
  15. Ikeda DM, Birdwell RL, O'Shaughnessy KF, et al. Computer-aided detection output on 172 subtle findings on normal mammograms previously obtained in women with breast cancer detected at follow-up screening mammography. Radiology. 2004;230:811–819
  16. Malich A, Marx C, Facius M, et al. Tumour detection rate of a new commercially available computer-aided detection system. Eur Radiol. 2001;11:2454–2459

PII: S0009-9260(08)00301-2

doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2008.07.008

Clinical Radiology
Volume 64, Issue 1 , Pages 46-51 , January 2009

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution