» Articles » PMID: 23131867

Role of Computer-aided Detection in Very Small Screening Detected Invasive Breast Cancers

Overview
Journal J Digit Imaging
Publisher Springer
Date 2012 Nov 8
PMID 23131867
Citations 1
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
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.

Citing Articles

Efficacy of ultrasonography and mammography in detecting features of breast cancer.

Alshoabi S, Alareqi A, Gameraddin M, Gareeballah A, Alsultan K, Alzain A J Family Med Prim Care. 2025; 14(1):341-347.

PMID: 39989587 PMC: 11844950. DOI: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1225_24.


Interpretation time for screening mammography as a function of the number of computer-aided detection marks.

Schwartz T, Hillis S, Sridharan R, Lukyanchenko O, Geiser W, Whitman G J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2020; 7(2):022408.

PMID: 32042859 PMC: 6996587. DOI: 10.1117/1.JMI.7.2.022408.

References
1.
Khoo L, Taylor P, Given-Wilson R . Computer-aided detection in the United Kingdom National Breast Screening Programme: prospective study. Radiology. 2005; 237(2):444-9. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2372041362. View

2.
Vyborny C, Giger M, Nishikawa R . Computer-aided detection and diagnosis of breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am. 2000; 38(4):725-40. DOI: 10.1016/s0033-8389(05)70197-4. View

3.
Ellis R, Meade A, Mathiason M, Willison K, Logan-Young W . Evaluation of computer-aided detection systems in the detection of small invasive breast carcinoma. Radiology. 2007; 245(1):88-94. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2451060760. View

4.
Mushlin A, Kouides R, Shapiro D . Estimating the accuracy of screening mammography: a meta-analysis. Am J Prev Med. 1998; 14(2):143-53. DOI: 10.1016/s0749-3797(97)00019-6. View

5.
Rao V, Levin D, Parker L, Cavanaugh B, Frangos A, Sunshine J . How widely is computer-aided detection used in screening and diagnostic mammography?. J Am Coll Radiol. 2010; 7(10):802-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2010.05.019. View