Computer-aided detection performance in mammographic examination of masses: Assessment
Computer-aided detection performance in mammographic examination of masses: Assessment
复制标题
DOI：
10.1148/radiol.2332040277
复制
发表时间：
2004-11-01
期刊：
影响因子：
19.7
通讯作者：
Rockette, HE
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gur, D;Stalder, JS;Rockette, HE
目得：为了比较性能的两个计算机辅助检测（CAD）系统和一个内部的计划，适用于五组顺序获得的筛查mammalgames.MATERIALS和METHODS：二百一十九电影为基础的乳腺X线检查，分为五组，被列入本研究。第1组包括58项检查，其中在筛选期间检测到经验证的恶性肿块;第2组包括39项检查，其中在诊断这些恶性肿块之前进行了所有可用的最新检查（来自第1组的39名女性的子集）;第3组，22名，其中结果被解释为阴性，但在阴性解释后1年内被证实为癌症（漏诊癌症）;第4组，50例，结果为阴性，患者未被召回接受额外手术;第5组，50例，患者被召回接受额外手术，结果为癌症阴性。在所有检查中，使用两个食品和药物管理局批准的市售CAD系统和一个内部方案处理图像。性能水平的真阳性检出率和假阳性识别每图像和每次examinations.RESULTS的数量进行了比较：质量检测率在阳性检查（组1）为67%-72%。三种系统的检出率无显著性差异（P > .05）。在50例阴性筛查中（第4组），假阳性率范围为1.08 - 1.68/四视图检查。系统之间的性能水平差异对于假阳性率是显著的（P = 0.008）。所有系统的性能都低于一些回顾性研究中公开建议的水平。假阳性CAD提示率显着较高的阴性检查中，患者被召回（第5组）比那些患者没有被召回（第4组）（P小于或等于0.002）。结论：CAD系统的质量检测乳腺X线摄影的性能变化显着，取决于检查和系统使用。可以提高临床环境中所有系统的实际性能。(C)RSNA，2004年。
PURPOSE: To compare performance of two computer-aided detection (CAD) systems and an in-house scheme applied to five groups of sequentially acquired screening mammograms.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred nineteen film-based mammographic examinations, classified into five groups, were included in this study. Group 1 included 58 examinations in which verified malignant masses were detected during screening; group 2, 39 in which all available latest examinations were performed prior to diagnosis of these malignant masses (subset of 39 women from group 1); group 3, 22 in which findings were interpreted as negative but were verified as cancer within 1 year from the negative interpretation (missed cancers); group 4, 50 in which findings were negative and patients were not recalled for additional procedures; and group 5, 50 in which patients were recalled for additional procedures and findings were negative for cancer. In all examinations, images were processed with two Food and Drug Administration-approved commercially available CAD systems and an in-house scheme. Performance levels in terms of true-positive detection rates and number of false-positive identifications per image and per examination were compared.RESULTS: Mass detection rates in positive examinations (group 1) were 67%-72%. Detection rates among three systems were not significantly different (P > .05). In 50 negative screening examinations (group 4), false-positive rates ranged from 1.08 to 1.68 per four-view examination. Performance level differences among systems were significant for false-positive rates (P = .008). Performance of all systems was at levels lower than publicly suggested in some retrospective studies. False-positive CAD cueing rates were significantly higher for negative examinations in which patients were recalled (group 5) than they were for those in which patients were not recalled (group 4) (P less than or equal to .002).CONCLUSION: Performance of CAD systems for mass detection at mammography varies significantly, depending on examination and system used. Actual performance of all systems in clinical environment can be improved. (C) RSNA, 2004.