Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2007 Apr 5;356(14):1399-409.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa066099.

Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography

Joshua J Fenton et al. N Engl J Med. .

Abstract

Background: Computer-aided detection identifies suspicious findings on mammograms to assist radiologists. Since the Food and Drug Administration approved the technology in 1998, it has been disseminated into practice, but its effect on the accuracy of interpretation is unclear.

Methods: We determined the association between the use of computer-aided detection at mammography facilities and the performance of screening mammography from 1998 through 2002 at 43 facilities in three states. We had complete data for 222,135 women (a total of 429,345 mammograms), including 2351 women who received a diagnosis of breast cancer within 1 year after screening. We calculated the specificity, sensitivity, and positive predictive value of screening mammography with and without computer-aided detection, as well as the rates of biopsy and breast-cancer detection and the overall accuracy, measured as the area under the receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curve.

Results: Seven facilities (16%) implemented computer-aided detection during the study period. Diagnostic specificity decreased from 90.2% before implementation to 87.2% after implementation (P<0.001), the positive predictive value decreased from 4.1% to 3.2% (P=0.01), and the rate of biopsy increased by 19.7% (P<0.001). The increase in sensitivity from 80.4% before implementation of computer-aided detection to 84.0% after implementation was not significant (P=0.32). The change in the cancer-detection rate (including invasive breast cancers and ductal carcinomas in situ) was not significant (4.15 cases per 1000 screening mammograms before implementation and 4.20 cases after implementation, P=0.90). Analyses of data from all 43 facilities showed that the use of computer-aided detection was associated with significantly lower overall accuracy than was nonuse (area under the ROC curve, 0.871 vs. 0.919; P=0.005).

Conclusions: The use of computer-aided detection is associated with reduced accuracy of interpretation of screening mammograms. The increased rate of biopsy with the use of computer-aided detection is not clearly associated with improved detection of invasive breast cancer.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overall Accuracy of Screening Mammography, According to the Use of Computer-Aided Detection (CAD)
Overall accuracy was assessed with the use of receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curves for 332,869 mammograms interpreted (308,099 without the use of CAD and 24,770 with the use of CAD) by participating radiologists. These curves plot the true positive rate of screening mammography (sensitivity) against the false positive rate (1 – specificity). The ROC curves and estimates of the areas under the curve (AUCs) were adjusted for patient, radiologist, and facility characteristics, as well as for mammography registry. The AUC was 0.919 for nonuse of CAD and 0.871 for use of CAD (P = 0.005).

Comment in

References

    1. Chan HP, Doi K, Galhotra S, Vyborny CJ, MacMahon H, Jokich PM. Image feature analysis and computer-aided diagnosis in digital radiography. I. Automated detection of microcalcifications in mammography. Med Phys. 1987;14:538–48. - PubMed
    1. Doi K, Giger ML, Nishikawa RM, Schmidt RA. Computer-aided diagnosis of breast cancer on mammograms. Breast Cancer. 1997;4:228–33. - PubMed
    1. Brem RF, Baum J, Lechner M, et al. Improvement in sensitivity of screening mammography with computer-aided detection: a multiinstitutional trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181:687–93. - PubMed
    1. Warren Burhenne LJ, Wood SA, D'Orsi CJ, et al. Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography. Radiology. 2000;215:554–62. Erratum, Radiology 2000:216:306. - PubMed
    1. Birdwell RL, Ikeda DM, O'Shaughnessy KF, Sickles EA. Mammographic characteristics of 115 missed cancers later detected with screening mammography and the potential utility of computer-aided detection. Radiology. 2001;219:192–202. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms