Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Standalone computer-aided detection compared to radiologists’ performance for the detection of mammographic masses

  • Breast
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

We developed a computer-aided detection (CAD) system aimed at decision support for detection of malignant masses and architectural distortions in mammograms. The effect of this system on radiologists' performance depends strongly on its standalone performance. The purpose of this study was to compare the standalone performance of this CAD system to that of radiologists.

Methods

In a retrospective study, nine certified screening radiologists and three residents read 200 digital screening mammograms without the use of CAD. Performances of the individual readers and of CAD were computed as the true-positive fraction (TPF) at a false-positive fraction of 0.05 and 0.2. Differences were analysed using an independent one-sample t-test.

Results

At a false-positive fraction of 0.05, the performance of CAD (TPF = 0.487) was similar to that of the certified screening radiologists (TPF = 0.518, P = 0.17). At a false-positive fraction of 0.2, CAD performance (TPF = 0.620) was significantly lower than the radiologist performance (TPF = 0.736, P <0.001). Compared to the residents, CAD performance was similar for all false-positive fractions.

Conclusions

The sensitivity of CAD at a high specificity was comparable to that of human readers. These results show potential for CAD to be used as an independent reader in breast cancer screening.

Key points

Computer-aided detection (CAD) systems are used to detect malignant masses in mammograms

Current CAD systems operate at low specificity to avoid perceptual oversight

A CAD system has been developed that operates at high specificity

The performance of the CAD system is approaching that of trained radiologists

CAD has the potential to be an independent reader in screening

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

FFDM:

full field digital mammograms

k-NN:

k-nearest neighbour

References

  1. Rao VM, Levin DC, Parker L, Cavanaugh B, Frangos AJ, Sunshine JH (2010) How widely is computer-aided detection used in screening and diagnostic mammography? J Am Coll Radiol 7:802–805

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Houssami N, Given-Wilson R, Ciatto S (2009) Early detection of breast cancer: overview of the evidence on computer-aided detection in mammography screening. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 53:171–176

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Alberdi E, Povyakalo A, Strigini L, Ayton P, Given-Wilson R (2008) CAD in mammography: lesion-level versus case-level analysis of the effects of prompts on human decisions. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 3:115–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Fenton JJ, Abraham L, Taplin SH et al (2011) Effectiveness of computer-aided detection in community mammography practice. J Natl Cancer Inst 103:1152–1161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Taylor P, Potts HWW (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 44:798–807

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fenton JJ, Taplin SH, Carney PA et al (2007) Inuence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography. N Engl J Med 356:1399–1409

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Gur D, Stalder JS, Hardesty LA et al (2004) Computer-aided detection performance in mammographic examination of masses: assessment. Radiology 233:418–423

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Blanks RG, Wallis MG, Given-Wilson RM (1999) Observer variability in cancer detection during routine repeat (incident) mammographic screening in a study of two versus one view mammography. J Med Screen 6:152–158

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Mello-Thoms C (2003) Perception of breast cancer: eye-position analysis of mammogram interpretation. Acad Radiol 10:4–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Samulski M, Hupse R, Boetes C, Mus R, den Heeten G, Karssemeijer N (2010) Using computer aided detection in mammography as a decision support. Eur Radiol 20(10):2323–2330

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Karssemeijer N, Otten JD, Verbeek AL et al (2003) Computer-aided detection versus independent double reading of masses on mammograms. Radiology 227(1):192–200

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hupse R, Karssemeijer N (2009) The use of contextual information for computer aided detection of masses in mammograms. Proc SPIE 7260:72600Q

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Samulski M, Karssemeijer N (2011) Optimizing case-based detection performance in a multiview CAD system for mammography. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 30(4):1001–1009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Karssemeijer N, Bluekens AM, Beijerinck D et al (2009) Breast cancer screening results 5 years after introduction of digital mammography in a population-based screening program. Radiology 253:353–358

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kallenberg M, Karssemeijer N (2008) Computer-aided detection of masses in full-field digital mammography using screen-film mammograms for training. Phys Med Biol 53(23):6879–6891

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fracheboud J, de Koning HJ, Beemsterboer PM et al (1998) Nation-wide breast cancer screening in The Netherlands: results of initial and subsequent screening 1990-1995. National Evaluation Team for Breast Cancer Screening. Int J Cancer 75(5):694–698

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Holland R, Rijken H, Hendriks J (2007) The Dutch population-based mammography screening: 30-year experience. Breast Care 2:12–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Timp S, Varela C, Karssemeijer N (2007) Temporal change analysis for characterization of mass lesions in mammography. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 26:945–953

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kamitani T, Yabuuchi H, Soeda H et al (2007) Detection of masses and micro-calcifications of breast cancer on digital mammograms: comparison among hard-copy film, 3-megapixel liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors and 5-megapixel LCD monitors: an observer performance study. Eur Radiol 17:1365–1371

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gur D, Bandos AI, Cohen CS et al (2008) The "laboratory" effect: comparing radiologists' performance and variability during prospective clinical and laboratory mammography interpretations. Radiology 249:47–53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Thurfjell EL, Lernevall KA, Taube AA (1994) Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program. Radiology 191:241–244

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Anderson ED, Muir BB, Walsh JS, Kirkpatrick AE (1994) The efficacy of double reading mammograms in breast screening. Clin Radiol 49:248–251

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Brown J, Bryan S, Warren R (1996) Mammography screening: an incremental cost effectiveness analysis of double versus single reading of mammograms. Br Med J 312:809–812

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Blanks RG, Wallis MG, Moss SM (1998) A comparison of cancer detection rates achieved by breast cancer screening programmes by number of readers, for one and two view mammography: results from the UK National Health Service breast screening program. J Med Screen 5:195–201

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Karssemeijer N, Otten JD, Roelofs AAJ, van Woudenberg S, Hendriks JHCL (2004) Effect of independent multiple reading of mammograms on detection performance. Proc SPIE 5372:82–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by grant no. KUN 2006-3655 of the Dutch Cancer Society. The authors gratefully acknowledge the participation of C.N.A. Frotscher, E. Ghazi, S. Gommers, U.C. Lalji, R.M. Mann and R.D. Mus in the observer performance study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rianne Hupse.

Additional information

Carla Boetes deceased in May 2011.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hupse, R., Samulski, M., Lobbes, M. et al. Standalone computer-aided detection compared to radiologists’ performance for the detection of mammographic masses. Eur Radiol 23, 93–100 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2562-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2562-7

Keywords

Navigation