RESUMO
To compare double reading plus arbitration for discordance, (currently best practice, (BP)) with computer-aided-detection (CAD)-assisted single reading (CAD-R) for detection of invasive cancers detected within BreastScreen Australia. Secondarily, to examine characteristics of cancers detected/rejected using each method. Mammograms of 157 randomly selected double-read invasive cancers were mixed 1:9 with normal cancers (total 1569), all detected in a BreastScreen service. Cancers were detected by two readers or one reader (C2 and C1 cancers, ratio 70:30%) in the program. The 1569 film-screen mammograms were read by two radiologists (reader A (RA) and reader B(RB)), with findings recorded before and after CAD. Discordant findings with BP were resolved by arbitration. We compared CAD-assisted reading (CAD-RA, CAD-RB) with BP, and CAD and arbitration contribution to findings. We correlated cancer size, sensitivity and mammographic density with detection methods. BP sensitivity 90.4% compared with CAD-RA sensitivity 86.6% (P = 0.12) and CAD-RB 94.3% (P = 0.14). CAD-RB specificity was less than BP (P = 0.01). CAD sensitivity was 93%, but readers rejected most positive CAD prompts. After CAD, reader's sensitivity increased 1.9% and specificity dropped 0.2% and 0.8%. Arbitration decreased specificity 4.7%. Receiving operator curves analysis demonstrated BP accuracy better than CAD-RA, borderline significance (P = 0.07), but not CAD-RB. Secondarily, cancer size was similar for BP and CAD-R. Cancers recalled after arbitration (P = 0.01) and CAD-R (P = 0.10) were smaller. No difference in cancer size or sensitivity between reading methods was found with increasing breast density. CAD-R and BP sensitivity and cancer detection size were not significantly different. CAD-R specificity was significantly lower for one reader.
