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
. 2013 Jun;26(3):572-7.
doi: 10.1007/s10278-012-9550-y.

Role of computer-aided detection in very small screening detected invasive breast cancers

Affiliations

Role of computer-aided detection in very small screening detected invasive breast cancers

Xavier Bargalló et al. J Digit Imaging. 2013 Jun.

Abstract

This study aims to assess computer-aided detection (CAD) performance with full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in very small (equal to or less than 1 cm) invasive breast cancers. Sixty-eight invasive breast cancers less than or equal to 1 cm were retrospectively studied. All cases were detected with FFDM in women aged 49-69 years from our breast cancer screening program. Radiological characteristics of lesions following BI-RADS descriptors were recorded and compared with CAD sensitivity. Age, size, BI-RADS classification, breast density type, histological type of the neoplasm, and role of the CAD were also assessed. Per-study specificity and mass false-positive rate were determined by using 100 normal consecutive studies. Thirty-seven (54.4 %) masses, 17 (25 %) calcifications, 6 (8.8 %) masses with calcifications, 7 (10.3 %) architectural distortions, and 1 asymmetry (1.5 %) were found. CAD showed an overall sensitivity of 86.7 % (masses, 86.5 %; calcifications, 100 %; masses with calcifications, 100 %; and architectural distortion, 57.14 %), CAD failed to detect 9 out of 68 cases: 5 of 37 masses, 3 of 7 architectural distortions, and 1 of 1 asymmetry. Fifteen out of 37 masses were hyperdense, and all of them were detected by CAD. No association was seen among mass morphology or margins and detectability. Per-study specificity and CAD false-positive rate was 26 % and 1.76 false marks per study. In conclusion, CAD shows a high sensitivity and a low specificity. Lesion size, histology, and breast density do not influence sensitivity. Mammographic features, mass density, and thickness of the spicules in architectural distortions do influence.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Warren Burhenne LJ, Wood SA, D'Orsi CJ, Feig SA, Kopans DB, O'Shaughnessy KF, Sickles EA, Tabar L, Vyborny CJ, Castellino RA. Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography. Radiology. 2000;215:554–562. - PubMed
    1. Mushlin AI, Kouides RW, Shapiro DE. Estimating the accuracy of screening mammography: a meta-analysis. Am J Prev Med. 1998;14:143–153. doi: 10.1016/S0749-3797(97)00019-6. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Vyborny CJ, Giger ML, Nishikawa RM. Computer-aided detection and diagnosis of breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am. 2000;38:725–740. doi: 10.1016/S0033-8389(05)70197-4. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rao VM, Levin DC, Parker L, Cavanaugh B, Frangos AJ, Sunshine JH. How widely is computer-aided detection used in screening and diagnostic mammography? JACR J American College of Radiology. 2010;7:802–805. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2010.05.019. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Birdwell RL, Bandodkar P, Ikeda DM. Computer-aided detection with screening mammography in a university hospital setting. Radiology. 2005;236:451–457. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2362040864. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types