Standalone computer-aided detection compared to radiologists' performance for the detection of mammographic masses.

OBJECTIVES: We developed a computer-aided detection (CAD) system aimed at decision support for detection of malignant masses and architectural distortions in mammograms. The effect of this system on radiologists' performance depends strongly on its standalone performance. The purpose of this study was to compare the standalone performance of this CAD system to that of radiologists. METHODS: In a retrospective study, nine certified screening radiologists and three residents read 200 digital screening mammograms without the use of CAD. Performances of the individual readers and of CAD were computed as the true-positive fraction (TPF) at a false-positive fraction of 0.05 and 0.2. Differences were analysed using an independent one-sample t-test. RESULTS: At a false-positive fraction of 0.05, the performance of CAD (TPF = 0.487) was similar to that of the certified screening radiologists (TPF = 0.518, P = 0.17). At a false-positive fraction of 0.2, CAD performance (TPF = 0.620) was significantly lower than the radiologist performance (TPF = 0.736, P <0.001). Compared to the residents, CAD performance was similar for all false-positive fractions. CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of CAD at a high specificity was comparable to that of human readers. These results show potential for CAD to be used as an independent reader in breast cancer screening.

Increase in perceived case suspiciousness due to local contrast optimisation in digital screening mammography.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the influence of local contrast optimisation on diagnostic accuracy and perceived suspiciousness of digital screening mammograms. METHODS: Data were collected from a screening region in the Netherlands and consisted of 263 digital screening cases (153 recalled,110 normal). Each case was available twice, once processed with a tissue equalisation (TE) algorithm and once with local contrast optimisation (PV). All cases had digitised previous mammograms. For both algorithms, the probability of malignancy of each finding was scored independently by six screening radiologists. Perceived case suspiciousness was defined as the highest probability of malignancy of all findings of a radiologist within a case. Differences in diagnostic accuracy of the processing algorithms were analysed by comparing the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (A(z)). Differences in perceived case suspiciousness were analysed using sign tests. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in A(z) (TE: 0.909, PV 0.917, P = 0.46). For all radiologists, perceived case suspiciousness using PV was higher than using TE more often than vice versa (ratio: 1.14-2.12). This was significant (P <0.0083) for four radiologists. CONCLUSIONS: Optimisation of local contrast by image processing may increase perceived case suspiciousness, while diagnostic accuracy may remain similar. KEY POINTS: Variations among different image processing algorithms for digital screening mammography are large. Current algorithms still aim for optimal local contrast with a low dynamic range. Although optimisation of contrast may increase sensitivity, diagnostic accuracy is probably unchanged. Increased local contrast may render both normal and abnormal structures more conspicuous.