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
. 2020 Dec;59(4):576-581.
doi: 10.20471/acc.2020.59.04.02.

WHAT CAN WE ACTUALLY SEE USING COMPUTER AIDED DETECTION IN MAMMOGRAPHY?

Martina Džoić Dominković  1 , Gordana Ivanac  1 , Niko Radović  1 , Mislav Čavka  1
Affiliations

WHAT CAN WE ACTUALLY SEE USING COMPUTER AIDED DETECTION IN MAMMOGRAPHY?

Martina Džoić Dominković et al. Acta Clin Croat. 2020 Dec.

Abstract

The main goal of this study was to compare the results of computer aided detection (CAD) analysis in screening mammography with the results independently obtained by two radiologists for the same samples and to determine the sensitivity and specificity of CAD for breast lesions. A total of 436 mammograms were analyzed with CAD. For each screening mammogram, the changes in breast tissue recognized by CAD were compared to the interpretations of two radiologists. The sensitivity and specificity of CAD for breast lesions were calculated using contingency table. The sensitivity of CAD for all lesions was 54% and specificity 16%. CAD sensitivity for suspicious lesions only was 86%. CAD sensitivity for microcalcifications was 100% and specificity 45%. CAD mainly 'mistook' glandular parenchyma, connective tissue and blood vessels for breast lesions, and blood vessel calcifications and axillary folds for microcalcifications. In this study, we confirmed CAD as an excellent tool for recognizing microcalcifications with 100% sensitivity. However, it should not be used as a stand-alone tool in breast screening mammography due to the high rate of false-positive results.

Keywords: Breast neoplasm; CAD sensitivity; CAD specificity; Computer aided detection (CAD); Image interpretation computer-assisted; Mammography.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Example of a mass that was not recognized by computer aided detection. The figure shows a regularly shaped mass that has sharp margins on one side and indistinct boundaries on the other side.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Perry N, Broeders M, De Wolf CN, Törnberg S, Holland R, Von Karsa L. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. 4th edition. Ann Oncol. 2008;19(4):614-22. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdm481 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brkljacic B, Miletic D, Sardanelli F. Thermography is not a feasible method for breast cancer screening. Coll Antropol. 2013;2:589–93. - PubMed
    1. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology. 2002;225(1):165–75. 10.1148/radiol.2251011667 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dromain C, Boyer B, Ferré R, Canale S, Delaloge S, Balleyguier C. Computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) in the detection of breast cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82(3):417–23. 10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.03.005 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Azavedo E, Zackrisson S, Mejare I, Heibert Arnlind M. Is single reading with computer-aided detection (CAD) as good as double reading in mammography screening? A systematic review. BMC Med Imaging. 2012;12:22. 10.1186/1471-2342-12-22 - DOI - PMC - PubMed