|
|
||||||||
Breast Imaging |
1 From the Kurt Rossmann Laboratories for Radiologic Image Research, Dept of Radiology (Y.J., R.M.N., R.A.S., K.D.), and the Depts of Anesthesia and Critical Care (A.Y.T.) and Health Studies (A.Y.T.), Univ of Chicago, 5841 S Maryland Ave, MC2026, Chicago, IL 60637. Received Jul 13, 2000; revision requested Aug 21; final revision received Jan 15, 2001; accepted Feb 15. Supported in part by NIH grant CA 60187. Address correspondence to Y.J. (e-mail: y-jiang@uchicago.edu).
PURPOSE: To evaluate whether computer-aided diagnosis can reduce interobserver variability in the interpretation of mammograms.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten radiologists interpreted mammograms showing clustered microcalcifications in 104 patients. Decisions for biopsy or follow-up were made with and without a computer aid, and these decisions were compared. The computer was used to estimate the likelihood that a microcalcification cluster was due to a malignancy. Variability in the radiologists recommendations for biopsy versus follow-up was then analyzed.
RESULTS: Variation in the radiologists accuracy, as measured with the SD of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, was reduced by 46% with computer aid. Access to the computer aid increased the agreement among all observers from 13% to 32% of the total cases (P < .001), while the
value increased from 0.19 to 0.41 (P < .05). Use of computer aid eliminated two-thirds of the substantial disagreements in which two radiologists recommended biopsy and routine screening in the same patient (P < .05).
CONCLUSION: In addition to its demonstrated potential to improve diagnostic accuracy, computer-aided diagnosis has the potential to reduce the variability among radiologists in the interpretation of mammograms.
Index terms: Breast neoplasms, calcification, 00.81 Breast neoplasms, diagnosis, 00.30 Computers, diagnostic aid Diagnostic radiology, observer performance
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
A. Suzuki, Y. Nakamoto, T. Terauchi, M. Kawamoto, Y. Okumura, Y. Suzuki, T. Sato, N. Takahashi, J. Lee, M. Senda, et al. Inter-observer Variations in FDG-PET Interpretation for Cancer Screening Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol., August 18, 2007; (2007) hym064v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H. Kato, M. Kanematsu, X. Zhang, M. Saio, H. Kondo, S. Goshima, and H. Fujita Computer-Aided Diagnosis of Hepatic Fibrosis: Preliminary Evaluation of MRI Texture Analysis Using the Finite Difference Method and an Artificial Neural Network Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2007; 189(1): 117 - 122. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. Skaane, A. Kshirsagar, S. Stapleton, K. Young, and R. A. Castellino Effect of Computer-Aided Detection on Independent Double Reading of Paired Screen-Film and Full-Field Digital Screening Mammograms Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2007; 188(2): 377 - 384. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. L. Partain, H.-P. Chan, J. G. Gelovani, M. L. Giger, J. A. Izatt, F. A. Jolesz, K. Kandarpa, K. C. P. Li, M. McNitt-Gray, S. Napel, et al. Biomedical Imaging Research Opportunities Workshop II: Report and Recommendations Radiology, August 1, 2005; 236(2): 389 - 403. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. E. Deurloo, S. H. Muller, J. L. Peterse, A. P. E. Besnard, and K. G. A. Gilhuijs Clinically and Mammographically Occult Breast Lesions on MR Images: Potential Effect of Computerized Assessment on Clinical Reading Radiology, March 1, 2005; 234(3): 693 - 701. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K Doi Current status and future potential of computer-aided diagnosis in medical imaging Br. J. Radiol., January 1, 2005; 78(suppl_1): S3 - s19. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. V. Destounis, P. DiNitto, W. Logan-Young, E. Bonaccio, M. L. Zuley, and K. M. Willison Can Computer-aided Detection with Double Reading of Screening Mammograms Help Decrease the False-Negative Rate? Initial Experience Radiology, August 1, 2004; 232(2): 578 - 584. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. A. Krupinski Computer-aided Detection in Clinical Environment: Benefits and Challenges for Radiologists Radiology, April 1, 2004; 231(1): 7 - 9. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. A. Helvie, L. Hadjiiski, E. Makariou, H.-P. Chan, N. Petrick, B. Sahiner, S.-C. B. Lo, M. Freedman, D. Adler, J. Bailey, et al. Sensitivity of Noncommercial Computer-aided Detection System for Mammographic Breast Cancer Detection: Pilot Clinical Trial Radiology, April 1, 2004; 231(1): 208 - 214. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. M. Ikeda, R. L. Birdwell, K. F. O'Shaughnessy, E. A. Sickles, and R. J. Brenner 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, March 1, 2004; 230(3): 811 - 819. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. Gur, J. H. Sumkin, H. E. Rockette, M. Ganott, C. Hakim, L. Hardesty, W. R. Poller, R. Shah, and L. Wallace Changes in Breast Cancer Detection and Mammography Recall Rates After the Introduction of a Computer-Aided Detection System J Natl Cancer Inst, February 4, 2004; 96(3): 185 - 190. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| RADIOLOGY | RADIOGRAPHICS | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |