Single reading with computer-aided detection for screening mammography.

Background: The sensitivity of screening mammography for the detection of small breast cancers is higher when the mammogram is read by two readers rather than by a single reader. We conducted a trial to determine whether the performance of a single reader using a computer-aided detection system woul...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:New England Journal of Medicine Vol. 359; no. 16; pp. 1675 - 1685
Main Authors: Gilbert FJ, Astley SM, Gillan MGC, Agbaje OF, Wallis MG, James J, Boggis CRM, Duffy SW, Gilbert, Fiona J, Astley, Susan M, Gillan, Maureen G C, Agbaje, Olorunsola F, Wallis, Matthew G, James, Jonathan, Boggis, Caroline R M, Duffy, Stephen W
Format: research tables/charts Journal Article
Published: New England Journal of Medicine 10/16/2008
Online Access:View this record in EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=105967505&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 105967505
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00284793
        NEJ
      jtl: New England Journal of Medicine
      issn: 00284793
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: 10/16/2008
      vid: 359
      iid: 16
      pid: 388
      pub: New England Journal of Medicine
      place: Waltham, Massachusetts
    artinfo:
      ui:
        105967505
        NLM18832239
        2010071997
        10.1056/NEJMoa0803545
        NLM18832239
        105967505
      ppf: 1675
      ppct: 10
      formats:
      tig:
        atl: Single reading with computer-aided detection for screening mammography.
      aug:
        au:
          Gilbert FJ
          Astley SM
          Gillan MGC
          Agbaje OF
          Wallis MG
          James J
          Boggis CRM
          Duffy SW
          Gilbert, Fiona J
          Astley, Susan M
          Gillan, Maureen G C
          Agbaje, Olorunsola F
          Wallis, Matthew G
          James, Jonathan
          Boggis, Caroline R M
          Duffy, Stephen W
        affil: Aberdeen Biomedical Imaging Centre, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom
      sug:
        subj:
          Breast Neoplasms Diagnosis
          Diagnosis, Computer Assisted
          Equivalence Evaluation
          Mammography
          Adult
          Aged
          Breast Neoplasms Epidemiology
          Comparative Studies
          Confidence Intervals
          Cost Benefit Analysis
          Descriptive Statistics
          Digital Imaging
          Education, Continuing (Credit)
          England
          Female
          McNemar's Test
          Middle Age
          Multicenter Studies
          Power Analysis
          Prospective Studies
          Random Assignment
          Sample Size Determination
          Sensitivity and Specificity
          United Kingdom
          Human
          Adult: 19-44 years
          Aged: 65+ years
          Middle Aged: 45-64 years
          Female
      ab: Background: The sensitivity of screening mammography for the detection of small breast cancers is higher when the mammogram is read by two readers rather than by a single reader. We conducted a trial to determine whether the performance of a single reader using a computer-aided detection system would match the performance achieved by two readers. Methods: The trial was designed as an equivalence trial, with matched-pair comparisons between the cancer-detection rates achieved by single reading with computer-aided detection and those achieved by double reading. We randomly assigned 31,057 women undergoing routine screening by film mammography at three centers in England to double reading, single reading with computer-aided detection, or both double reading and single reading with computer-aided detection, at a ratio of 1:1:28. The primary outcome measures were the proportion of cancers detected according to regimen and the recall rates within the group receiving both reading regimens. Results: The proportion of cancers detected was 199 of 227 (87.7%) for double reading and 198 of 227 (87.2%) for single reading with computer-aided detection (P=0.89). The overall recall rates were 3.4% for double reading and 3.9% for single reading with computer-aided detection; the difference between the rates was small but significant (P<0.001). The estimated sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value for single reading with computer-aided detection were 87.2%, 96.9%, and 18.0%, respectively. The corresponding values for double reading were 87.7%, 97.4%, and 21.1%. There were no significant differences between the pathological attributes of tumors detected by single reading with computer-aided detection alone and those of tumors detected by double reading alone. Conclusions: Single reading with computer-aided detection could be an alternative to double reading and could improve the rate of detection of cancer from screening mammograms read by a single reader. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00450359.)
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        research
        tables/charts
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N