Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography

Joshua J Fenton, Stephen H Taplin, Patricia A Carney, Linn Abraham, Edward A Sickles, Carl D'Orsi, Eric A Berns, Gary Cutter, R Edward Hendrick, William E Barlow, Joann G Elmore, Joshua J Fenton, Stephen H Taplin, Patricia A Carney, Linn Abraham, Edward A Sickles, Carl D'Orsi, Eric A Berns, Gary Cutter, R Edward Hendrick, William E Barlow, Joann G Elmore

Abstract

Background: Computer-aided detection identifies suspicious findings on mammograms to assist radiologists. Since the Food and Drug Administration approved the technology in 1998, it has been disseminated into practice, but its effect on the accuracy of interpretation is unclear.

Methods: We determined the association between the use of computer-aided detection at mammography facilities and the performance of screening mammography from 1998 through 2002 at 43 facilities in three states. We had complete data for 222,135 women (a total of 429,345 mammograms), including 2351 women who received a diagnosis of breast cancer within 1 year after screening. We calculated the specificity, sensitivity, and positive predictive value of screening mammography with and without computer-aided detection, as well as the rates of biopsy and breast-cancer detection and the overall accuracy, measured as the area under the receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curve.

Results: Seven facilities (16%) implemented computer-aided detection during the study period. Diagnostic specificity decreased from 90.2% before implementation to 87.2% after implementation (P<0.001), the positive predictive value decreased from 4.1% to 3.2% (P=0.01), and the rate of biopsy increased by 19.7% (P<0.001). The increase in sensitivity from 80.4% before implementation of computer-aided detection to 84.0% after implementation was not significant (P=0.32). The change in the cancer-detection rate (including invasive breast cancers and ductal carcinomas in situ) was not significant (4.15 cases per 1000 screening mammograms before implementation and 4.20 cases after implementation, P=0.90). Analyses of data from all 43 facilities showed that the use of computer-aided detection was associated with significantly lower overall accuracy than was nonuse (area under the ROC curve, 0.871 vs. 0.919; P=0.005).

Conclusions: The use of computer-aided detection is associated with reduced accuracy of interpretation of screening mammograms. The increased rate of biopsy with the use of computer-aided detection is not clearly associated with improved detection of invasive breast cancer.

Copyright 2007 Massachusetts Medical Society.

Figures

Figure 1. Overall Accuracy of Screening Mammography,…
Figure 1. Overall Accuracy of Screening Mammography, According to the Use of Computer-Aided Detection (CAD)
Overall accuracy was assessed with the use of receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curves for 332,869 mammograms interpreted (308,099 without the use of CAD and 24,770 with the use of CAD) by participating radiologists. These curves plot the true positive rate of screening mammography (sensitivity) against the false positive rate (1 – specificity). The ROC curves and estimates of the areas under the curve (AUCs) were adjusted for patient, radiologist, and facility characteristics, as well as for mammography registry. The AUC was 0.919 for nonuse of CAD and 0.871 for use of CAD (P = 0.005).

References

    1. Chan HP, Doi K, Galhotra S, Vyborny CJ, MacMahon H, Jokich PM. Image feature analysis and computer-aided diagnosis in digital radiography. I. Automated detection of microcalcifications in mammography. Med Phys. 1987;14:538–48.
    1. Doi K, Giger ML, Nishikawa RM, Schmidt RA. Computer-aided diagnosis of breast cancer on mammograms. Breast Cancer. 1997;4:228–33.
    1. Brem RF, Baum J, Lechner M, et al. Improvement in sensitivity of screening mammography with computer-aided detection: a multiinstitutional trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181:687–93.
    1. Warren Burhenne LJ, Wood SA, D'Orsi CJ, et al. Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography. Radiology. 2000;215:554–62. Erratum, Radiology 2000:216:306.
    1. Birdwell RL, Ikeda DM, O'Shaughnessy KF, Sickles EA. Mammographic characteristics of 115 missed cancers later detected with screening mammography and the potential utility of computer-aided detection. Radiology. 2001;219:192–202.
    1. Hendrick RE, Cutter GR, Berns EA, et al. Community-based mammography practice: services, charges, and interpretation methods. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184:433–8.
    1. Das M, Muhlenbruch G, Mahnken AH, et al. Small pulmonary nodules: effect of two computer-aided detection systems on radiologist performance. Radiology. 2006;241:564–71.
    1. Summers RM, Jerebko AK, Franaszek M, Malley JD, Johnson CD. Colonic polyps: complementary role of computer-aided detection in CT colonography. Radiology. 2002;225:391–9.
    1. Freer TW, Ulissey MJ. Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology. 2001;220:781–6.
    1. Gur D, Sumkin JH, Rockette HE, et al. Changes in breast cancer detection and mammography recall rates after the introduction of a computer-aided detection system. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96:185–90.
    1. Cupples TE, Cunningham JE, Reynolds JC. Impact of computer-aided detection in a regional screening mammography program. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;185:944–50.
    1. Birdwell RL, Bandodkar P, Ikeda DM. Computer-aided detection with screening mammography in a university hospital setting. Radiology. 2005;236:451–7.
    1. Khoo LA, Taylor P, Given-Wilson RM. Computer-aided detection in the United Kingdom National Breast Screening Programme: prospective study. Radiology. 2005;237:444–9.
    1. Morton MJ, Whaley DH, Brandt KR, Amrami KK. Screening mammograms: interpretation with computer-aided detection — prospective evaluation. Radiology. 2006;239:375–83.
    1. Ballard-Barbash R, Taplin SH, Yankaskas BC, et al. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;169:1001–8.
    1. D'Orsi C, Tu SP, Nakano C, et al. Current realities of delivering mammography services in the community: do challenges with staffing and scheduling exist? Radiology. 2005;235:391–5.
    1. Barlow WE, Chi C, Carney PA, et al. Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96:1840–50.
    1. Elmore JG, Taplin SH, Barlow WE, et al. Does litigation influence medical practice? The influence of community radiologists' medical malpractice perceptions and experience on screening mammography. Radiology. 2005;236:37–46.
    1. D'Orsi C, Bassett L, Feig S, et al. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) 3rd ed. American College of Radiology; Reston, VA: 1998.
    1. Taplin SH, Ichikawa LE, Kerlikowske K, et al. Concordance of breast imaging reporting and data system assessments and management recommendations in screening mammography. Radiology. 2002;222:529–35.
    1. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology. 1982;143:29–36.
    1. Yankaskas BC, Taplin SH, Ichikawa L, et al. Association between mammography timing and measures of screening performance in the United States. Radiology. 2005;234:363–73.
    1. Miglioretti DL, Rutter CM, Geller BM, et al. Effect of breast augmentation on the accuracy of mammography and cancer characteristics. JAMA. 2004;291:442–50.
    1. Tosteson AN, Begg CB. A general regression methodology for ROC curve estimation. Med Decis Making. 1988;8:204–15.
    1. Barlow WE, White E, Ballard-Barbash R, et al. Prospective breast cancer risk prediction model for women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:1204–14.
    1. Smith-Bindman R, Chu P, Miglioretti DL, et al. Physician predictors of mammographic accuracy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:358–67.
    1. Castellino RA. Computer-aided detection: an overview. Appl Radiol Suppl. 2001;30:5–8.
    1. Food and Drug Administration [Accessed March 9, 2007];Summary of safety and effectiveness data: MammoReader. .
    1. Brenner RJ, Ulissey MJ, Wilt RM. Computer-aided detection as evidence in the courtroom: potential implications of an appellate court's ruling. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186:48–51.
    1. Taplin SH, Rutter CM, Lehman C. Testing the effect of computer-assisted detection on interpretive performance in screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187:1475–82.
    1. Malich A, Sauner D, Marx C, et al. Influence of breast lesion size and histo-logic findings on tumor detection rate of a computer-aided detection system. Radiology. 2003;228:851–6.
    1. Brem RF, Schoonjans JM. Radiologist detection of microcalcifications with and without computer-aided detection: a comparative study. Clin Radiol. 2001;56:150–4.
    1. Evans AJ, Pinder SE, Ellis IO, Wilson AR. Screen detected ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): overdiagnosis or an obligate precursor of invasive disease? J Med Screen. 2001;8:149–51.
    1. Sanders ME, Schuyler PA, Dupont WD, Page DL. The natural history of low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in women treated by biopsy only revealed over 30 years of long-term follow-up. Cancer. 2005;103:2481–4.
    1. Ernster VL, Ballard-Barbash R, Barlow WE, et al. Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:1546–54.
    1. D'Orsi CJ. Computer-aided detection: there is no free lunch. Radiology. 2001;221:585–6.
    1. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) increase reimbursement for computer aided detection (CAD) technology. R2 Technology; Los Altos, CA: 2004. [Accessed March 9, 2007]. .
    1. Kerlikowske K, Salzmann P, Phillips KA, Cauley JA, Cummings SR. Continuing screening mammography in women aged 70 to 79 years: impact on life expectancy and cost-effectiveness. JAMA. 1999;282:2156–63.

Source: PubMed

3
購読する