FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 356:1399-1409 April 5, 2007 Number 14 Next

	Full Text PDF PDA Full Text PowerPoint Slide Set Supplementary Material Editorial by Hall, F. M. Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited E-mail When Letters Appear

ABSTRACT

Background Computer-aided detection identifies suspicious findings on mammograms to assist radiologists. Since the Food and Drug Administration approved the technology in 1998, it has been disseminated into practice, but its effect on the accuracy of interpretation is unclear.

Methods We determined the association between the use of computer-aided detection at mammography facilities and the performance of screening mammography from 1998 through 2002 at 43 facilities in three states. We had complete data for 222,135 women (a total of 429,345 mammograms), including 2351 women who received a diagnosis of breast cancer within 1 year after screening. We calculated the specificity, sensitivity, and positive predictive value of screening mammography with and without computer-aided detection, as well as the rates of biopsy and breast-cancer detection and the overall accuracy, measured as the area under the receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curve.

Results Seven facilities (16%) implemented computer-aided detection during the study period. Diagnostic specificity decreased from 90.2% before implementation to 87.2% after implementation (P<0.001), the positive predictive value decreased from 4.1% to 3.2% (P=0.01), and the rate of biopsy increased by 19.7% (P<0.001). The increase in sensitivity from 80.4% before implementation of computer-aided detection to 84.0% after implementation was not significant (P=0.32). The change in the cancer-detection rate (including invasive breast cancers and ductal carcinomas in situ) was not significant (4.15 cases per 1000 screening mammograms before implementation and 4.20 cases after implementation, P=0.90). Analyses of data from all 43 facilities showed that the use of computer-aided detection was associated with significantly lower overall accuracy than was nonuse (area under the ROC curve, 0.871 vs. 0.919; P=0.005).

Conclusions The use of computer-aided detection is associated with reduced accuracy of interpretation of screening mammograms. The increased rate of biopsy with the use of computer-aided detection is not clearly associated with improved detection of invasive breast cancer.

Source Information

From the University of California, Davis, Sacramento (J.J.F.); the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD (S.H.T.); Oregon Health and Science University, Portland (P.A.C.); Group Health Cooperative, Seattle (L.A.); the University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco (E.A.S.); the Emory Clinic, Atlanta (C.D.); Northwestern University, Chicago (E.A.B., R.E.H.); the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham (G.C.); Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle (W.E.B.); and the University of Washington, Seattle (J.G.E.).

Address reprint requests to Dr. Fenton at the Department of Family and Community Medicine, UC Davis Health System, 4860 Y St., Ste. 2300, Sacramento, CA 95817, or at joshua.fenton{at}ucdmc.ucdavis.edu.

Full Text of this Article

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Birdwell, R. L. (2009). The Preponderance of Evidence Supports Computer-aided Detection for Screening Mammography. Radiology 253: 9-16 [Full Text]  
• Philpotts, L. E. (2009). Can Computer-aided Detection Be Detrimental to Mammographic Interpretation?. Radiology 253: 17-22 [Full Text]  
• Fenton, J. J., Green, P., Baldwin, L.-M. (2009). Internal Validation of Procedure Codes on Medicare Claims for Digital Mammograms and Computer-Aided Detection. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 18: 2186-2189 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Murray, J. (2009). Food For Thought: Self-Criticism and Raising the Bar of Dysphagia Practice. Swallowing and Swallowing Disorders (Dysphagia) 18: 68-77 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Nishikawa, R. M., Pesce, L. L. (2009). Computer-aided Detection Evaluation Methods Are Not Created Equal. Radiology 251: 634-636 [Full Text]  
• Burnside, E. S., Davis, J., Chhatwal, J., Alagoz, O., Lindstrom, M. J., Geller, B. M., Littenberg, B., Shaffer, K. A., Kahn, C. E. Jr, Page, C. D. (2009). Probabilistic Computer Model Developed from Clinical Data in National Mammography Database Format to Classify Mammographic Findings. Radiology 251: 663-672 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Hall, F. M. (2009). Computer-Aided Mammography Screening. NEJM 360: 836-836 [Full Text]  
• Huang, W., Li, X., Morris, E. A., Tudorica, L. A., Seshan, V. E., Rooney, W. D., Tagge, I., Wang, Y., Xu, J., Springer, C. S. (2008). The magnetic resonance shutter speed discriminates vascular properties of malignant and benign breast tumors in vivo. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105: 17943-17948 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Heine, J. J., Carston, M. J., Scott, C. G., Brandt, K. R., Wu, F.-F., Pankratz, V. S., Sellers, T. A., Vachon, C. M. (2008). An Automated Approach for Estimation of Breast Density. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 17: 3090-3097 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Gromet, M. (2008). Reply. Am. J. Roentgenol. 191: W205-W205 [Full Text]  
• Gilbert, F. J., Astley, S. M., Gillan, M. G.C., Agbaje, O. F., Wallis, M. G., James, J., Boggis, C. R.M., Duffy, S. W., the CADET II Group, (2008). Single Reading with Computer-Aided Detection for Screening Mammography. NEJM 359: 1675-1684 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Gur, D., Bandos, A. I., Cohen, C. S., Hakim, C. M., Hardesty, L. A., Ganott, M. A., Perrin, R. L., Poller, W. R., Shah, R., Sumkin, J. H., Wallace, L. P., Rockette, H. E. (2008). The "Laboratory" Effect: Comparing Radiologists' Performance and Variability during Prospective Clinical and Laboratory Mammography Interpretations. Radiology 249: 47-53 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Dorfman, G. S., Sullivan, D. C., Schnall, M. D., Matrisian, L. M., for the Translational Research Working Group, (2008). The Translational Research Working Group Developmental Pathway for Image-Based Assessment Modalities. Clin. Cancer Res. 14: 5678-5684 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Hofvind, S., Vacek, P. M., Skelly, J., Weaver, D. L., Geller, B. M. (2008). Comparing Screening Mammography for Early Breast Cancer Detection in Vermont and Norway. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 100: 1082-1091 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Hall, F. M. (2008). The Rise and Impending Decline of Screening Mammography. Radiology 247: 597-601 [Full Text]  
• Gur, D. (2008). Imaging Technology and Practice Assessment Studies: Importance of the Baseline or Reference Performance Level. Radiology 247: 8-11 [Full Text]  
• Gromet, M. (2008). Comparison of Computer-Aided Detection to Double Reading of Screening Mammograms: Review of 231,221 Mammograms. Am. J. Roentgenol. 190: 854-859 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Gur, D., Bandos, A. I., Rockette, H. E. (2008). Comparing Areas under Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves: Potential Impact of the "Last" Experimentally Measured Operating Point. Radiology 247: 12-15 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Bigenwald, R. Z., Warner, E., Gunasekara, A., Hill, K. A., Causer, P. A., Messner, S. J., Eisen, A., Plewes, D. B., Narod, S. A., Zhang, L., Yaffe, M. J. (2008). Is Mammography Adequate for Screening Women with Inherited BRCA Mutations and Low Breast Density?. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 17: 706-711 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Chlebowski, R. T., Anderson, G., Pettinger, M., Lane, D., Langer, R. D., Gillian, M. A., Walsh, B. W., Chen, C., McTiernan, A., for the Women's Health Initiative Investigators, (2008). Estrogen Plus Progestin and Breast Cancer Detection by Means of Mammography and Breast Biopsy. Arch Intern Med 168: 370-377 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Kopans, D. B., Jiang, Y., Miglioretti, D. L., Metz, C. E., Schmidt, R. A. (2008). History Repeats. Radiology 246: 645-646 [Full Text]  
• Georgian-Smith, D., Moore, R. H., Halpern, E., Yeh, E. D., Rafferty, E. A., D'Alessandro, H. A., Staffa, M., Hall, D. A., McCarthy, K. A., Kopans, D. B. (2007). Blinded Comparison of Computer-Aided Detection with Human Second Reading in Screening Mammography. Am. J. Roentgenol. 189: 1135-1141 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Brem, R. F. (2007). Blinded Comparison of Computer-Aided Detection with Human Second Reading in Screening Mammography: The Importance of the Question and the Critical Numbers Game. Am. J. Roentgenol. 189: 1142-1144 [Full Text]  
• Elmore, J. G., Brenner, R. J. (2007). The More Eyes, the Better to See? From Double to Quadruple Reading of Screening Mammograms. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 99: 1141-1143 [Full Text]  
• Ciatto, S., Houssami, N., Gur, D., Nishikawa, R. M., Schmidt, R. A., Metz, C. E., Ruiz, J. F., Feig, S. A., Birdwell, R. L., Linver, M. N., Fenton, J. J., Barlow, W. E., Elmore, J. G. (2007). Computer-aided screening mammography.. NEJM 357: 83-84 [Full Text]  
• (2007). Disappointing Data on Computer-Aided Detection for Screening Mammography. JWatch Women's Health 2007: 3-3 [Full Text]  
• Hall, F. M. (2007). Breast Imaging and Computer-Aided Detection. NEJM 356: 1464-1466 [Full Text]