Academic Radiology
Volume 16, Issue 9 , Pages 1095-1107 , September 2009

Investigation of Reading Mode and Relative Sensitivity as Factors That Influence Reader Performance When Using Computer-Aided Detection Software

Received 17 November 2008 ,Accepted 24 March 2009.

References 

  1. Helvie M. Improving mammographic interpretation: double reading and computer-aided diagnosis. Radiol Clin N Am. 2007;45:801–811
  2. Bird RE, Wallace TW, Yankaskas BC. Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography. Radiology. 1992;184:613–617
  3. Miglioretti DL, Smith-Bindman R, Abraham L, et al. Radiologist characteristics associated with interpretive performance of diagnostic mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99:1854–1863
  4. Huynh PT, Jarolimek AM, Daye S. The false-negative mammogram. Radiographics. 1998;18:1137–1154
  5. Durfee SM, Selland DG, Smith DN, et al. Sonographic evaluation of clinically palpable breast cancers invisible on mammography. Breast J. 2000;6:247–251
  6. Beam C, Layde PM, Sullivan DC. Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Arch Intern Med. 1996;156:209–213
  7. Kerlikowske K, Carney PA, Geller B, et al. Performance of screening mammography among women with and without a first-degree relative with breast cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2000;133:855–863
  8. Warren Burhenne LJ, Wood SA, D'Orsi CJ, et al. Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography. Radiology. 2000;215:554–562
  9. 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;181:687–693
  10. Ko JM, Nicholas MJ, Mendel JB, Slanetz PJ. Prospective assessment of computer-aided detection in interpretation of screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187:1483–1491
  11. Malich A, Fischer DR, Bottcher J. CAD for mammography: the technique, results, current role and further developments. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:1449–1490
  12. Freer TW, Ulissey MJ. Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology. 2001;220:781–786
  13. 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;96:185–190
  14. Birdwell RL, Bandodkar P, Ikeda DM. Computer-aided detection with screening mammography in a university hospital setting. Radiology. 2005;236:451–457
  15. Helvie MA, Hadjiiski L, Makariou E, et al. Sensitivity of noncommercial computer-aided detection system for mammographic breast cancer detection: pilot clinical trial. Radiology. 2004;231:208–214
  16. Khoo LA, Taylor P, Given-Wilson RM. Computer-aided detection in the United Kingdom National Breast Screening Programme: prospective study. Radiology. 2005;237:444–449
  17. Fenton JJ, Taplin SH, Carney PA, et al. Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1399–1409
  18. Gilbert FJ, Astley SM, Gillan MGC, et al. Single reading with computer-aided detection for screening mammography. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:1675–1684
  19. Astley SM. Evaluation of computer-aided detection (CAD) prompting techniques for mammography. Br J Radiol. 2005;78:S20–S25
  20. Krupinski EA. The importance of perception research in medical imaging. Radiat Med. 2000;18:329–334
  21. Krupinski EA, Nodine CF, Kundel HL. A perceptually based method for enhancing pulmonary nodule recognition. Invest Radiol. 1993;28:289–294
  22. Kobayashi T, Xu XW, MacMahon H, Metz CE, Doi K. Effect of a computer-aided diagnosis scheme on radiologists' performance in detection of lung nodules on radiographs. Radiology. 1996;199:843–848
  23. Paquerault S, Wade DI, Petrick N, Myers KJ, Samuelson FW. Observer evaluation of computer-aided detection: second reader versus concurrent reader scenario. SPIE Med Imaging. 2007;6515:65151N–65158N
  24. Heath M, Bowyer K, Kopans D, Moore R, Kegelmeyer WP. The Digital Database for Screening Mammography. In:  Yaffe MJ editors. Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Digital Mammography. Madison, WI: Medical Physics Publishing; 2001;p. 212–218
  25. Heath M, Bowyer K, Kopans D, et al. Current Status of the Digital Database for Screening Mammography. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Digital Mammography. New York: Kluwer Academic; 1998;p. 457–460
  26. Freedman M, Osicka T, Lo SC, et al. The effect of database content on machine performance and radiologist performance improvement with chest CAD. Int Congr Ser. 2005;1281:1087–1092
  27. Beiden SV, Wagner RF, Doi K, et al. Independent versus sequential reading in ROC studies of computer-assist modalities: analysis of components of variance. Acad Radiol. 2002;9:1036–1043
  28. Samuelson FW, Petrick N. Comparing image detection algorithms using resampling. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging. New York: IEEE; 2006;p. 1312–1315

 The Intramural Research Program of the National Institute of Blomedical Imaging and Bloenglneering (Bethesda, MD) provided Partlal support for this work.

PII: S1076-6332(09)00265-7

doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2009.03.024

Academic Radiology
Volume 16, Issue 9 , Pages 1095-1107 , September 2009

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution