Single reading with computer-aided detection for screening mammography

被引:197
作者
Gilbert, Fiona J. [1 ]
Astley, Susan M. [2 ]
Gillan, Maureen G. C. [1 ]
Agbaje, Olorunsola F. [3 ]
Wallis, Matthew G. [4 ]
James, Jonathan [5 ]
Boggis, Caroline R. M. [6 ]
Duffy, Stephen W. [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Aberdeen, Aberdeen Biomed Imaging Ctr, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, Scotland
[2] Univ Manchester, Dept Imaging Sci & Biomed Engn, Manchester, Lancs, England
[3] Wolfson Inst Prevent Med, Dept Epidemiol Math & Stat, London, England
[4] Addenbrookes Hosp, Cambridge Breast Unit, Cambridge, England
[5] City Hosp Nottingham, Nottingham Breast Inst, Nottingham, England
[6] Wythenshawe Hosp, Nightingale Breast Screening Unit, Manchester M23 9LT, Lancs, England
关键词
D O I
10.1056/NEJMoa0803545
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: The sensitivity of screening mammography for the detection of small breast cancers is higher when the mammogram is read by two readers rather than by a single reader. We conducted a trial to determine whether the performance of a single reader using a computer-aided detection system would match the performance achieved by two readers. Methods: The trial was designed as an equivalence trial, with matched-pair comparisons between the cancer-detection rates achieved by single reading with computer-aided detection and those achieved by double reading. We randomly assigned 31,057 women undergoing routine screening by film mammography at three centers in England to double reading, single reading with computer-aided detection, or both double reading and single reading with computer-aided detection, at a ratio of 1:1:28. The primary outcome measures were the proportion of cancers detected according to regimen and the recall rates within the group receiving both reading regimens. Results: The proportion of cancers detected was 199 of 227 (87.7%) for double reading and 198 of 227 (87.2%) for single reading with computer-aided detection (P=0.89). The overall recall rates were 3.4% for double reading and 3.9% for single reading with computer-aided detection; the difference between the rates was small but significant (P<0.001). The estimated sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value for single reading with computer-aided detection were 87.2%, 96.9%, and 18.0%, respectively. The corresponding values for double reading were 87.7%, 97.4%, and 21.1%. There were no significant differences between the pathological attributes of tumors detected by single reading with computer-aided detection alone and those of tumors detected by double reading alone. Conclusions: Single reading with computer-aided detection could be an alternative to double reading and could improve the rate of detection of cancer from screening mammograms read by a single reader. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00450359.).
引用
收藏
页码:1675 / 1684
页数:10
相关论文
共 60 条
[1]   DOUBLE READING OF MAMMOGRAPHY SCREENING FILMS - ONE RADIOLOGIST OR 2 [J].
ANTTINEN, I ;
PAMILO, M ;
SOIVA, M ;
ROIHA, M .
CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 1993, 48 (06) :414-421
[2]  
Astley S, 2004, P IWDM INT WORKSH DI, P231
[3]   Computer-aided detection in mammography [J].
Astley, SM ;
Gilbert, FJ .
CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 2004, 59 (05) :390-399
[4]   Does the accuracy of single reading with CAD (computer-aided detection) compare with that of double reading?: A review of the literature [J].
Bennett, R. L. ;
Blanks, R. G. ;
Moss, S. M. .
CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 2006, 61 (12) :1023-1028
[5]   Computer-aided detection with screening mammography in a university hospital setting [J].
Birdwell, RL ;
Bandodkar, P ;
Ikeda, DM .
RADIOLOGY, 2005, 236 (02) :451-457
[6]   Mammographic characteristics of 115 missed cancers later detected with screening mammography and the potential utility of computer-aided detection [J].
Birdwell, RL ;
Ikeda, DM ;
O'Shaughnessy, KF ;
Sickles, EA .
RADIOLOGY, 2001, 219 (01) :192-202
[7]   Observer variability in cancer detection during routine repeat (incident) mammographic screening in a study of two versus one view mammography [J].
Blanks, RG ;
Wallis, MG ;
Given-Wilson, RM .
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCREENING, 1999, 6 (03) :152-158
[8]   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 programme [J].
Blanks, RG ;
Wallis, MG ;
Moss, SM .
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCREENING, 1998, 5 (04) :195-201
[9]  
*BLUECROSS BLUESHI, 2002, COMP AID DET CAD MAM
[10]   Blinded comparison of computer-aided detection with human second reading in screening mammography: The importance of the question and the critical numbers game [J].
Brem, Rachel F. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2007, 189 (05) :1142-1144