Early detection of breast cancer (BC) is crucial in lowering the mortality.
Purpose
To present an overview of studies concerning computer-aided detection (CAD) in screening mammography for early detection of BC and compare diagnostic accuracy and recall rates (RR) of single reading (SR) with SR + CAD and double reading (DR) with SR + CAD.
Material and Methods
PRISMA guidelines were used as a review protocol. Articles on clinical trials concerning CAD for detection of BC in a screening population were included. The literature search resulted in 1522 records. A total of 1491 records were excluded by abstract and 18 were excluded by full text reading. A total of 13 articles were included.
Results
All but two studies from the SR vs. SR + CAD group showed an increased sensitivity and/or cancer detection rate (CDR) when adding CAD. The DR vs. SR + CAD group showed no significant differences in sensitivity and CDR. Adding CAD to SR increased the RR and decreased the specificity in all but one study. For the DR vs. SR + CAD group only one study reported a significant difference in RR.
Conclusion
All but two studies showed an increase in RR, sensitivity and CDR when adding CAD to SR. Compared to DR no statistically significant differences in sensitivity or CDR were reported. Additional studies based on organized population-based screening programs, with longer follow-up time, high-volume readers, and digital mammography are needed to evaluate the efficacy of CAD.
FerlayJSoerjomataramIDikshitRet al.Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer2015; 136: 359–386.
2.
SardanelliFHildegunnSAÁlvarezMet al.Position paper on screening for breast cancer by the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) and 30 national breast radiology bodies from Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Israel, Lithuania, Moldova, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey. Eur Radiol2016; 27: 2737–2743.
3.
Lauby-SecretanBScocciantiCLoomisDet al.Breast-cancer screening–viewpoint of the IARC Working Group. N Engl J Med2015; 372: 2353–2358.
4.
JacobsenKKAbrahaLBuistDSMet al.Comparison of cumulative false-positive risk of screening mammography in the United States and Denmark. Cancer Epidemiol2015; 39: 656–663.
5.
BazzocchiMMazzarellaFDel FrateCet al.CAD systems for mammography: a real opportunity? A review of the literature. Radiol Med2007; 112: 329–353.
6.
Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, et al. European Commission. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. 4th edn. Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2006.
7.
AzavedoEZackrissonSMejáreIet al.Is single reading with computer-aided detection (CAD) as good as double reading in mammography screening? A systematic review. BMC Med Imaging2012; 12: 12–12.
8.
Mello-ThomsC. Perception of breast cancer: eye-position analysis of mammogram interpretation. Acad Radiol2003; 10: 4–12.
9.
BirdwellRL. The preponderance of evidence supports computer-aided detection for screening mammography. Radiology2009; 253: 9–16.
10.
GigerMLChanHPBooneJet al.Anniversary paper: History and status of CAD and quantitative image analysis: the role of Medical Physics and AAPM. Med Phys2008; 35: 5799–5820.
11.
DromainCBoverBCanaleSet al.Computed-aided diagnosis (CAD) in the detection of breast cancer. Eur J Radiol2013; 82: 417–423.
12.
TaylorPChampnessJGiven-WilsonRet al.Impact of computer-aided detection prompts on the sensitivity an specificity of screening mammography. Health Technol Assess2005; 9: 1–58.
13.
KeenJDKeenJMKeenJE. Utilization of computer-aided detection for digital screening mammography in the United States, 2008 to 2016. J Am Coll Radiol2017; 15: 44–48.
14.
LiberatiAAltmanDGTetzlaffJet al.The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med2009; 6: e1000100–e1000100.
15.
DeanJCIlventoCC. Improved cancer detection using computer-aided detection with diagnostic and screening mammography: Prospective study of 104 cancers. Am J Roentgenol2006; 187: 20–28.
16.
KoJMNicholasMJMendelJMet al.Prospective assessment of computer-aided detection in interpretation of screening mammography. Am J Roentgenol2006; 187: 1483–1491.
FentonJJTaplinSHCarneyPAet al.Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography. N Engl J Med2007; 356: 1399–1409.
19.
FentonJJAbrahamLTaplinSHet al.Effectiveness of computer-aided detection in community mammography practice. J Natl Cancer Inst2011; 103: 1152–1161.
20.
GomezSSTabaneraMTBolivarAVet al.Impact of a CAD system in a screen-film mammography screening program: A prospective study. Eur J Radiol2011; 80: 317–321.
21.
FentonJJXingGElmoreJGet al.Short-term outcomes of screening mammography using computer-aided detection: a population-based study of medicare enrollees. Ann Intern Med2013; 158: 580–587.
22.
LehmanCDWellmanRDBuistDSet al.Diagnostic accuracy of digital screening mammography with and without computer-aided detection. JAMA Intern Med2015; 175: 1828–1837.
23.
GilbertFJAstleySMGillanMGet al.Single reading with computer-aided detection for screening mammography. N Engl J Med2008; 359: 1675–1684.
24.
RomeroCAlmenarAPintoJMet al.Impact on breast cancer diagnosis in a multidisciplinary unit after the incorporation of mammography digitalization and computer-aided detection systems. Am J Roentgenol2011; 197: 1492–1497.
25.
BargalloXSantamaríaGdel AmoMet al.Single reading with computer-aided detection performed by selected radiologists in a breast cancer screening program. Eur J Radiol2014; 83: 2019–2023.
26.
Georgian-SmithDMooreRHHalpernEet al.Blinded comparison of computer-aided detection with human second reading in screening mammography. Am J Roentgenol2007; 189: 1135–1141.
27.
GrometM. Comparison of computer-aided detection to double reading of screening mammograms: review of 231,221 mammograms. Am J Roentgenol2008; 190: 854–859.
28.
SkaanePKshirsagarAStapletonSet al.Effect of computer-aided detection on independent double reading of paired screen-film and full-field digital screening mammograms. Am J Roentgenol2007; 188: 377–384.
29.
SkaanePKshirsagarAHofvindSet al.Mammography screening using independent double reading with consensus: is there a potential benefit for computer-aided detection?Acta Radiol2012; 53: 241–248.
30.
FeigSASicklesEAEvansWPet al.Re: Changes in breast cancer detection and mammography recall rates after the introduction of a computer-aided detection system. J Natl Cancer Inst2004; 96: 1260–1261.
31.
AlberdiEPovyakaloAAStriginiLet al.CAD in mammography: lesion-level versus case-level analysis of the effects of prompts on human decisions. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg2008; 3: 115–122.
32.
HoussamiNGiven-WilsonRCiattoS. Early detection of breast cancer: Overview of the evidence on computer-aided detection in mammography screening: Radiology - Review article. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol2009; 53: 171–176.
33.
NobleMBrueningWUhlSet al.Computer-aided detection mammography for breast cancer screening: systematic review and meta-analysis (Structured abstract). Arch Gynecol Obstet2009; 279: 881–890.
34.
PhilpottsLE. Can computer-aided detection be detrimental to mammographic interpretation?Radiology2009; 253: 17–22.
35.
BremRFHoffmeisterJWZisanGet al.A computer-aided detection system for the evaluation of breast cancer by mammographic appearance and lesion size. Am J Roentgenol2005; 184: 893–896.
