Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 279, Issue 6, pp 881–890 | Cite as

Computer-aided detection mammography for breast cancer screening: systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Meredith Noble
  • Wendy Bruening
  • Stacey Uhl
  • Karen Schoelles
Original Article

Abstract

Context

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.

Objective

To assess the diagnostic performance of CAD for screening mammography in terms of sensitivity and specificity and incremental recall, biopsy, and cancer diagnosis rates.

Data sources

Published literature identified by systematic literature searches of 17 databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, searched through 25 September 2008.

Study selection

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 extraction

Data were extracted and internal validity was assessed by a single review author, and forms were approved by the co-authors.

Results

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.

Keywords

Computer-aided detection (CAD) Mammography Screening Sensitivity and specificity Incremental diagnoses Breast cancer 

References

  1. 1.
    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 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brewer NT, Salz T, Lillie SE (2007) Systematic review: the long-term effects of false-positive mammograms. Ann Intern Med 146(7):502–510PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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):1–42Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Higgins JP, Thompson SG (2002) Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 21(11):1539–1558. doi:10.1002/sim.1186 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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
  10. 10.
    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 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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-LPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Taylor P (2008) (Centre for Health Informatics and Multiprofessional Education, University College London, Highgate Hill). Personal communication, 1 p, 29 September 2008Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    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):185–190PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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):516–526PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Meredith Noble
    • 1
  • Wendy Bruening
    • 1
  • Stacey Uhl
    • 1
  • Karen Schoelles
    • 1
  1. 1.ECRI Institute, Evidence-based Practice Center and Health Technology Assessment GroupPlymouth MeetingUSA

Personalised recommendations