Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

False Positive Marks on Unsuspicious Screening Mammography with Computer-Aided Detection

  • Published:
Journal of Digital Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The contribution of computer-aided detection (CAD) systems as an interpretive aid in screening mammography can be hampered by a high rate of false positive detections. Specificity, false positive rate, and ease of dismissing false positive marks from two CAD systems are retrospectively evaluated. One hundred screening mammographic studies with a BI-RADS assessment code of 1 or 2 and at least 2-year normal mammographic follow-up were retrospectively reviewed using two CAD systems. Breast density, CAD marks, and radiologist's ease of dismissing false positive marks were recorded. Specificities from the two CAD versions considering all marks were 23% and 15% (p value = 0.07); mass marks, 35% and 17% (p value < 0.01); and calcification marks 62% and 75% (p value = 0.01). The two CAD versions did not differ regarding mean and median marks per case for all marks (2.3, 2.0 and 2.3, 2.0, p value = 0.65) or mass marks (1.6, 1.0 and 1.8, 2.0, p value = 0.15), but differed for calcification marks (0.8, 0 and 0.5, 0, p value < 0.01). Slightly higher specificity and fewer marks per case observed in dense breasts did not reach statistical significance. The reviewing radiologist classified most marks from both CAD systems (84% and 88%) as very easy/easy to dismiss. The two CAD versions had small differences in specificity and false positive marks. Differences, although not statistically significant, in specificities and false positive rates between dense and non-dense breasts warrant further research. Most false positive marks are easily dismissed and should not affect clinical performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Birdwell RL: The preponderance of evidence supports computer-aided detection for screening mammography. Radiology 253:9–16, 2009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Philpotts LE: Can computer-aided detection be detrimental to mammographic interpretation? Radiology 253:17–22, 2009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Brem RF, Baum J, Lechner M, et al: Improvement in sensitivity of screening mammography with computer-aided detection: a multi-institutional trial. AJR 181:687–693, 2003

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Warren Burhenne LJ, Wood SA, D’Orsi CJ, et al: Potential contribution of computer-aided detection of the sensitivity of screening mammography. Radiology 215:554–562, 2000

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Freer TW, Ulissey MJ: Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology 220:781–786, 2001

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Birdwell RL, Bandodkar P, Ikeda DM: Computer-aided detection with screening mammography in a university hospital setting. Radiology 236:451–457, 2005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cupples TE, Cunningham JE, Reynolds JC: Impact of computer-aided detection in a regional screening mammography program. AJR 185:944–950, 2005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Morton MJ, Whaley DH, Brandt KR, et al: Screening mammograms: interpretation with computer-aided detection—prospective evaluation. Radiology 239:375–383, 2006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dean JC, Ilvento CC: Improved cancer detection using computer-aided detection with diagnostic and screening mammography: prospective study of 104 cancers. AJR 187:20–28, 2006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ko JM, Nicholas MJ, Mendel JB, Slanetz PJ: Prospective assessment of computer-aided detection in interpretation of screening mammography. AJR 187:1483–1491, 2006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Destounis SV, DiNitto P, Logan-Young W, et al: Can computer-aided detection with double reading of screening mammograms help decrease the false-negative rate? Initial experience. Radiology 232:578–584, 2004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gur D, Sumkin JH, Rockette HE, et al: Changes in breast cancer detection and mammography recall rates after the introduction of a computer-aided detection system. JNCI 96(3):185–190, 2004

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Fenton JJ, Taplin SH, Carney PA, et al: Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography. NEJM 356:1399–1409, 2007

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Gromet M: Comparison of computer-aided detection to double reading of screening mammograms: review of 231,221 mammograms. AJR 190:854–859, 2008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Khoo LAL, Taylor P, Given-Wilson RM: Computer-aided detection in the United Kingdom National Breast Screening Programme: prospective study. Radiology 237:444–449, 2005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gilbert FJ, Astley SM, McGee MA, et al: Single reading with computer-aided detection and double reading of screening mammograms in the United Kingdom National Breast Screening Program. Radiology 241:47–53, 2006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gilbert FJ, Astley SM, Gillan MGC, et al: Single reading with computer-aided detection for screening mammography. NEJM 359:1675–1684, 2008

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Brancato B, Houssami N, Francesca D, et al: Does computer-aided detection (CAD) contribute to the performance of digital mammography in a self-referred population? Breast Cancer Res Treat 111:373–376, 2008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Feig SA, Sickles EA, Evans WP, Linver MN: Re: Changes in breast cancer detection and mammography recall rates after the introduction of a computer-aided detection system [letter]. J Natl Cancer Inst 96:1260–1261, 2004. author reply 1261

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hukkinen K, Vehmas T, Pamilo M, Kivisaari L: Effect of computer-aided detection on mammographic performance: experimental study on readers with different levels of experience. Acta Radiol 47(3):257–263, 2006

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Luo P, Qian W, Romilly P: CAD-aided mammogram training. Acad Radiol 12(8):1039–48, 2005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Brem RF, Hoffmeister JW, Rapelyea JA, et al: Impact of breast density on computer aided detection for breast cancer. AJR 184:439–444, 2005

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Brem RF, Rapelyea JA, Zisman G, Hoffmeister JW, Desimio MP: Evaluation of breast cancer with a computer-aided detection system by mammographic appearance and histopathology. Cancer 104:931–935, 2005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Malich A, Sauner D, Marx C, et al: Influence of breast lesion size and histologic findings on tumor detection rate of a computer-aided detection system. Radiology 228:851–856, 2003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ciatto S, Ambrogetti D, Bonardi R, et al: Comparison of two commercial systems for computer-assisted detection (CAD) as an aid to interpreting screening mammograms. La Radiol Med 107:480–488, 2004

    Google Scholar 

  26. Yang SK, Moon WK, Cho N, et al: Screening mammography-detected cancers: sensitivity of a computer-aided detection system applied to full-field digital mammograms. Radiology 244:104–111, 2007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Skaane P, Kshirsagar A, Stapleton S, et al: Effect of computer-aided detection on independent double reading of paired screen-film and full-field digital screening mammograms. AJR 188:377–384, 2007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. The JS, Schilling KJ, Hoffmeister JW, et al: Detection of breast cancer with full-field digital mammography and computer-aided detection. AJR 192:337–340, 2009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Malich A, Fischer DR, Facius M, et al: Effect of breast density on computer aided detection. J Digit Imaging 18:227–233, 2005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Leon S, Brateman L, Honeyman-Buck J, Marshall J: Comparison of two commercial CAD systems for digital mammography. J Digit Imaging 22(4):421–423, 2009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Zheng B, Ganott MA, Britton CA, et al: Soft-copy mammographic readings with different computer-assisted detection cuing environments: preliminary findings. Radiology 221:633–640, 2001

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Barrett Cancer Center, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, 234 Goodman Street, Mail Location 772, Cincinnati, OH, 45267, USA

    Mary C. Mahoney

  2. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Cincinnati, PO Box 670840, Cincinnati, OH, 45267-0840, USA

    Karthikeyan Meganathan

Authors
  1. Mary C. Mahoney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karthikeyan Meganathan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary C. Mahoney.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mahoney, M.C., Meganathan, K. False Positive Marks on Unsuspicious Screening Mammography with Computer-Aided Detection. J Digit Imaging 24, 772–777 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-011-9389-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-011-9389-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation