Computer-aided detection mammography for breast cancer screening: systematic review and meta-analysis
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
Mammography is generally accepted as the best available breast cancer screening method; however, some cancers detectable on mammography images are missed. Computer-aided detection (CAD) systems for mammography are intended to reduce false negatives by marking suspicious areas of the mammograms for reviewers to consider. Although the prospect of improving the sensitivity of screening mammograms has led to the diffusion of CAD for mammography, little is known about its diagnostic accuracy.
To assess the diagnostic performance of CAD for screening mammography in terms of sensitivity and specificity and incremental recall, biopsy, and cancer diagnosis rates.
Published literature identified by systematic literature searches of 17 databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, searched through 25 September 2008.
A reviewer and an information specialist selected full-length English-language articles that enrolled asymptomatic women for routine breast cancer screening and provided data needed for our analyses using criteria established a priori. We identified 75 potentially relevant publications, of which 7 (9%) were included.
Data were extracted and internal validity was assessed by a single review author, and forms were approved by the co-authors.
Three studies (n = 347,324) reported sensitivity and specificity, or data to calculate them, and five studies (n = 51,162) reported data to calculate incremental rates of cancer diagnoses and recall and biopsy of women who did not have breast cancer. The pooled sensitivity was 86.0% (95% CI 84.2–87.6%) and specificity was 88.2% (95% CI 88.1–88.3%). Of the 100,000 women screened, CAD yielded an additional 50 (95% CI 30–80) correct breast cancer diagnoses, 1,190 (95% CI 1,090–1,290) recalls of healthy women, and 80 (95% CI 60–100) biopsies of healthy women. A total of 96% (95% CI 93.9–97.3%) of women recalled based upon CAD and 65.1% (95% CI 52.3–76.0%) of women biopsied based upon CAD were healthy. No studies reported patient-oriented clinical outcomes.
- Tabar L, Vitak B, Yen MF, Chen HH, Smith RA, Duffy SW (2004) Number needed to screen: lives saved over 20 years of follow-up in mammographic screening. J Med Screen 11(3):126–129. doi:10.1258/0969141041732175 CrossRef
- Laming D, Warren R (2000) Improving the detection of cancer in the screening of mammograms. J Med Screen 7(1):24–30. doi:10.1136/jms.7.1.24 CrossRef
- Dinnes J, Moss S, Melia J, Blanks R, Song F, Kleijnen J (2001) Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of double reading of mammograms in breast cancer screening: findings of a systematic review. Breast 10(6):455–463. doi:10.1054/brst.2001.0350 CrossRef
- Taylor P, Potts HW (2008) Computer aids and human second reading as interventions in screening mammography: two systematic reviews to compare effects on cancer detection and recall rate. Eur J Cancer 44(6):798–807. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2008.02.016 CrossRef
- Brewer NT, Salz T, Lillie SE (2007) Systematic review: the long-term effects of false-positive mammograms. Ann Intern Med 146(7):502–510
- Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Kleijnen J (2003) The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 3(25):1–42
- Higgins JP, Thompson SG (2002) Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 21(11):1539–1558. doi:10.1002/sim.1186 CrossRef
- Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327(7414):557–560. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 CrossRef
- Borenstein M, Hedges L, Higgins J, Rothstein H (2005) Comprehensive meta-analysis. Version 2. Englewood (NJ): Biostat. Also available: http://www.meta-analysis.com/pages/about_us.html
- Zamora J, Abraira V, Muriel A, Khan K, Coomarasamy A (2006) Meta-DiSc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMC Med Res Methodol 6:31. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-6-31 CrossRef
- DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7(3):177–188. doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 CrossRef
- Olkin I (1999) Diagnostic statistical procedures in medical meta-analysis. Stat Med 18(17–18):2331–2341. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19990915/30)18:17/18<2331::AID-SIM259>3.0.CO;2-L CrossRef
- Taylor P (2008) (Centre for Health Informatics and Multiprofessional Education, University College London, Highgate Hill). Personal communication, 1 p, 29 September 2008
- Gur D, Sumkin JH, Rockette HE, Ganott M, Hakim C, Hardesty L, Poller WR, Shah R, Wallace L (2004) Changes in breast cancer detection and mammography recall rates after the introduction of a computer-aided detection system. J Natl Cancer Inst 96(3):185–190 CrossRef
- Cupples TE, Cunningham JE, Reynolds JC (2005) Impact of computer-aided detection in a regional screening mammography program. AJR Am J Roentgenol 185(4):944–950. doi:10.2214/AJR.04.1300 CrossRef
- Dean JC, Ilvento CC (2006) Improved cancer detection using computer-aided detection with diagnostic and screening mammography: prospective study of 104 cancers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187(1):20–28. doi:10.2214/AJR.05.0111 CrossRef
- Gilbert FJ, Astley SM, Gillan MG, Agbaje OF, Wallis MG, James J, Boggis CR, Duffy SW (2008) The CADET II group. Single reading with computer-aided detection for screening mammography. N Engl J Med 359(16):1675–1684. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0803545 CrossRef
- Fenton JJ, Taplin SH, Carney PA, Abraham L, Sickles EA, D’Orsi C, Berns EA, Cutter G, Hendrick RE, Barlow WE, Elmore JG (2007) Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography. N Engl J Med 356(14):1399–1409. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa066099 CrossRef
- Gromet M (2008) Comparison of computer-aided detection to double reading of screening mammograms: review of 231, 221 mammograms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190(4):854–859. doi:10.2214/AJR.07.2812 CrossRef
- Georgian-Smith D, Moore RH, Halpern E, Yeh ED, Rafferty EA, D’Alessandro HA, Staffa M, Hall DA, McCarthy KA, Kopans DB (2007) Blinded comparison of computer-aided detection with human second reading in screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189(5):1135–1141. doi:10.2214/AJR.07.2393 CrossRef
- Ko JM, Nicholas MJ, Mendel JB, Slanetz PJ (2006) Prospective assessment of computer-aided detection in interpretation of screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187(6):1483–1491. doi:10.2214/AJR.05.1582 CrossRef
- Morton MJ, Whaley DH, Brandt KR, Amrami KK (2006) Screening mammograms: interpretation with computer-aided detection–prospective evaluation. Radiology 239(2):375–383. doi:10.1148/radiol.2392042121 CrossRef
- Birdwell RL, Bandodkar P, Ikeda DM (2005) Computer-aided detection with screening mammography in a university hospital setting. Radiology 236(2):451–457. doi:10.1148/radiol.2362040864 CrossRef
- Freer TW, Ulissey MJ (2001) Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12, 860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology 220(3):781–786. doi:10.1148/radiol.2203001282 CrossRef
- Armstrong K, Moye E, Williams S, Berlin JA, Reynolds EE (2007) Screening mammography in women 40 to 49 years of age: a systematic review for the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med 146(7):516–526
- Ganott MA, Sumkin JH, King JL, Klym AH, Catullo VJ, Cohen CS, Gur D (2006) Screening mammography: do women prefer a higher recall rate given the possibility of earlier detection of cancer. Radiology 238(3):793–800. doi:10.1148/radiol.2383050852 CrossRef
- Computer-aided detection mammography for breast cancer screening: systematic review and meta-analysis
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics
Volume 279, Issue 6 , pp 881-890
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links
- Computer-aided detection (CAD)
- Sensitivity and specificity
- Incremental diagnoses
- Breast cancer
- Industry Sectors