How Widely Is Computer-Aided Detection Used in Screening and Diagnostic Mammography?

Department of Radiology, Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Journal of the American College of Radiology: JACR (Impact Factor: 2.84). 10/2010; 7(10):802-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2010.05.019
Source: PubMed


The aim of this study was to determine how widely computer-aided detection (CAD) is used in screening and diagnostic mammography and to see if there are differences between hospital facilities and private offices.
The nationwide Medicare Part B fee-for-service databases for 2004 to 2008 were used. The Current Procedural Terminology(®) codes for screening and diagnostic mammography (both digital and screen film) and the CAD add-on codes were selected. Procedure volume was compared for screening vs diagnostic mammography and for hospital facilities vs private offices.
From 2004 to 2008, Medicare screening mammography volume increased slightly from 5,728,419 to 5,827,326 (+2%), but the use of screening CAD increased from 2,257,434 to 4,305,595 (+91%). By 2008, CAD was used in 74% of all screening mammographic studies. During this same time period, the Medicare volume of diagnostic mammography declined slightly from 1,835,700 to 1,682,026 (-8%), but the use of diagnostic CAD increased from 360,483 to 845,461 (+135%). By 2008, CAD was used in 50% of all diagnostic mammographic studies. In hospital facilities in 2008, CAD was used in 70% of all screening mammographic studies, compared with 81% in private offices. For diagnostic mammography in 2008, CAD was used in 48% in hospitals, compared with 55% in private offices.
Despite some operational drawbacks to using CAD, radiologists have embraced it in an effort to improve cancer detection. Its use has grown rapidly, and in 2008, it was used in three-quarters of all screening mammographic studies and half of all diagnostic mammographic studies. Women undergoing either screening or diagnostic mammography are more likely to receive CAD if they go to a private office than if they go to a hospital facility, although the differences are not great.

6 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Visual search, a vital task for humans and animals, has also become a common and important tool for studying many topics central to active vision and cognition ranging from spatial vision, attention, and oculomotor control to memory, decision making, and rewards. While visual search often seems effortless to humans, trying to recreate human visual search abilities in machines has represented an incredible challenge for computer scientists and engineers. What are the brain computations that ensure successful search? This review article draws on efforts from various subfields and discusses the mechanisms and strategies the brain uses to optimize visual search: the psychophysical evidence, their neural correlates, and if unknown, possible loci of the neural computations. Mechanisms and strategies include use of knowledge about the target, distractor, background statistical properties, location probabilities, contextual cues, scene context, rewards, target prevalence, and also the role of saliency, center-surround organization of search templates, and eye movement plans. I provide overviews of classic and contemporary theories of covert attention and eye movements during search explaining their differences and similarities. To allow the reader to anchor some of the laboratory findings to real-world tasks, the article includes interviews with three expert searchers: a radiologist, a fisherman, and a satellite image analyst.
    Journal of Vision 05/2011; 11(5). DOI:10.1167/11.5.14 · 2.39 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Computer-aided detection (CAD) is applied during screening mammography for millions of US women annually, although it is uncertain whether CAD improves breast cancer detection when used by community radiologists. We investigated the association between CAD use during film-screen screening mammography and specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value, cancer detection rates, and prognostic characteristics of breast cancers (stage, size, and node involvement). Records from 684 956 women who received more than 1.6 million film-screen mammograms at Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium facilities in seven states in the United States from 1998 to 2006 were analyzed. We used random-effects logistic regression to estimate associations between CAD and specificity (true-negative examinations among women without breast cancer), sensitivity (true-positive examinations among women with breast cancer diagnosed within 1 year of mammography), and positive predictive value (breast cancer diagnosed after positive mammograms) while adjusting for mammography registry, patient age, time since previous mammography, breast density, use of hormone replacement therapy, and year of examination (1998-2002 vs 2003-2006). All statistical tests were two-sided. Of 90 total facilities, 25 (27.8%) adopted CAD and used it for an average of 27.5 study months. In adjusted analyses, CAD use was associated with statistically significantly lower specificity (OR = 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.85 to 0.89, P < .001) and positive predictive value (OR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.80 to 0.99, P = .03). A non-statistically significant increase in overall sensitivity with CAD (OR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.84 to 1.33, P = .62) was attributed to increased sensitivity for ductal carcinoma in situ (OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 0.83 to 2.91; P = .17), although sensitivity for invasive cancer was similar with or without CAD (OR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.75 to 1.24; P = .77). CAD was not associated with higher breast cancer detection rates or more favorable stage, size, or lymph node status of invasive breast cancer. CAD use during film-screen screening mammography in the United States is associated with decreased specificity but not with improvement in the detection rate or prognostic characteristics of invasive breast cancer.
    Journal of the National Cancer Institute 08/2011; 103(15):1152-61. DOI:10.1093/jnci/djr206 · 12.58 Impact Factor

  • Journal of the National Cancer Institute 08/2011; 103(15):1139-41. DOI:10.1093/jnci/djr267 · 12.58 Impact Factor
Show more

Similar Publications