A test to evaluate the impact of the CAD tools in mammographic diagnosis

  • U. Bottigli
  • P. Delogu
  • M. E. Fantacci
  • F. Fauci
  • B. Golosio
  • P. L. Indovina
  • A. Lauria
  • R. Magro
  • R. Palmiere
  • G. Raso
  • S. Stumbo
  • S. Tangaro
Conference paper

Abstract

In this work we present the results of a study about the impact of CAD tools on Sensitivity and Specificity in mammographic diagnosis. The approach is aimed to evaluate the statistical significance through the comparison of these figures of merit obtained in different situations. For this purpose two different CAD tools, the CALMA station (INFN project) and the SecondLook™ station (by CADx) have been used as a support for radiologists.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    R.A. Smith, “Epidemiology of breast cancer”, “A categorical course in physics. Imaging considerations and medical physics responsibilities”, Madison, Wisconsin, 1991, Medical Physics Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blanks, British Medical Journal 321, 655–659, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    S.A. Feig, M.Yaffe, “Digital mammography, computer aided diagnosis and telemammograph” Radiol. Clin. N. Am. 33, 1205–1230, 1995.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    R.A. Scmidt, R.M.Nishikawa, “Clinical use of digital mammography: the presents and the prospects”, Digit. Imaging 8/1 suppl. 74–79, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    S.A. Feig and M.Yaffe, Radiologic Clinics of North America, Vol. 33 n. 6, 1205, 1995.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    R.E. Bird, “Professional quality assurance for mammographic programs”, Radiology 177, 587–592, 1990.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    E.L. Thurfjell, K.A. Lernevall, A.A.S. Taube, “Benefit of independent double reading in a population based mammography screening program” Radiology 191, 241–244, 1994.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    C.J. Viborny “Can computer help radiologists read mammograms?” Radiology 191, 315–317, 1994.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    C.J. Viborny, M.L. Giger, R.M. Nishikawa, “Computer aided detection and diagnosis of breast cancer”, R. diol. Clin. N. Am. 38 (4), 725–740, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reid MC, MS Lachs, AR Feinstein. “Use of methodological standard in diagnostic test research. Getting better but still not good.” JAMA 1995; 274: 645–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Altman DG. “Praticai Statistics for Medical Reserch” Chapman & Hall, 1991.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    F. Fauci and G. Raso, “A statistical method to compare diagnostic tests”, in press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. Palmiero, “The search for spiculated lesions in the CALMA project: status and perspectives” in “Neural Nets WIRN, Vietri-99”, Springer 1999.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    S.R. Amendolia et al., “The CALMA mammographs database: image collection and CAD tools for spiculated lesions detection and texture classification” presented at TORONTO WDM 2000 Conference.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Bazzocchi et al. “Application of a computer-aided detection (CAD) system to digitalized mammograms for identifying microcalcifications” Radiol. Med. 101:334–340, 2001PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Burhenne L, Wood S, D’Orsi C e Coll., “Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography”. Radiology 215: 554–562, 2000Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Freer TW, Ulissey MJ., “Computer-aided detection (CAD) in screening mammography: a prospective study of21860 patients in a community breast center”, LXXXV Annual Meeting Radiological Society of North America. Chicago IL (USA) pag. 400; November–1 December, 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • U. Bottigli
    • 1
  • P. Delogu
    • 2
  • M. E. Fantacci
    • 2
  • F. Fauci
    • 3
  • B. Golosio
    • 1
  • P. L. Indovina
    • 4
  • A. Lauria
    • 4
  • R. Magro
    • 3
  • R. Palmiere
    • 4
  • G. Raso
    • 3
  • S. Stumbo
    • 1
  • S. Tangaro
    • 1
  1. 1.INFN of Cagliari and University of SassariItaly
  2. 2.INFN and University of PisaItaly
  3. 3.Dipartimento di Fisica e Tecnologie RelativeUniversity of PalermoItaly
  4. 4.University “Federico II” of NapoliItaly

Personalised recommendations