乳腺钼靶摄影中的计算机辅助诊断（CAD）：一种新算法（Cyclopus，Medicad）与两种商业系统的诊断准确性比较。

Computer-assisted diagnosis (CAD) in mammography: comparison of diagnostic accuracy of a new algorithm (Cyclopus, Medicad) with two commercial systems.

作者信息

Ciatto S, Cascio D, Fauci F, Magro R, Raso G, Ienzi R, Martinelli F, Simone M Vasile

机构信息

Istituto Scientifico per la Prevenzione Oncologica, Firenze, Italy.

出版信息

Radiol Med. 2009 Jun;114(4):626-35. doi: 10.1007/s11547-009-0396-4. Epub 2009 May 14.

DOI:10.1007/s11547-009-0396-4

PMID:19444587

Abstract

PURPOSE

The study compares the diagnostic accuracy (correct identification of cancer) of a new computer-assisted diagnosis (CAD) system (Cyclopus) with two other commercial systems (R2 and CADx).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cyclopus was tested on a set of 120 mammograms on which the two compared commercial systems had been previously tested. The set consisted of mammograms reported as negative, preceding 31 interval cancers reviewed as screening error or minimal sign, and of 89 verified negative controls randomly selected from the same screening database.

RESULTS

Cyclopus sensitivity was 74.1% (R2=54.8%; CADx=41.9%) and was higher for interval cancers reviewed as screening error (90.9%; R2=54.5%; CADx=81.8%) compared with those reviewed as minimal sign (65.0%; R2=55.0%; CADx=20.0%). Specificity was 15.7% (R2=29.2%; CADx=17.9%). Overall accuracy was 30.8% (R2=35.8%; CADx=24.1%). The positive predictive value of a case with CAD marks [regions of interest (ROI)] was 23.4% (23/98; R2=16.0%; CADx=15.1%). Average ROI number per view among negative controls was 1.13 (R2=0.93; CADx=0.99). Cyclopus was more sensitive for masses compared with isolated microcalcifications (208 vs 62 ROI; R2=90 vs 213; CADx=192 vs 130).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with two other commercial systems, Cyclopus was more sensitive (R2 p=0.14; CADx p=0.02) and less specific (R2 p=0.02; CADx p=0.64).

摘要

目的

本研究比较了一种新型计算机辅助诊断（CAD）系统（Cyclopus）与其他两种商业系统（R2和CADx）的诊断准确性（癌症的正确识别）。

材料与方法

在一组120张乳房X线照片上对Cyclopus进行测试，之前已在这组照片上对两种比较的商业系统进行过测试。该组包括报告为阴性的乳房X线照片、31例间隔期癌症（之前被视为筛查错误或微小征象）以及从同一筛查数据库中随机选取的89例经证实的阴性对照。

结果

Cyclopus的敏感性为74.1%（R2 = 54.8%；CADx = 41.9%），对于被视为筛查错误的间隔期癌症（90.9%；R2 = 54.5%；CADx = 81.8%），其敏感性高于被视为微小征象的间隔期癌症（65.0%；R2 = 55.0%；CADx = 20.0%）。特异性为15.7%（R2 = 29.2%；CADx = 17.9%）。总体准确性为30.8%（R2 = 35.8%；CADx = 24.1%）。带有CAD标记（感兴趣区域[ROI]）的病例的阳性预测值为23.4%（23/98；R2 = 16.0%；CADx = 15.1%）。阴性对照中每张照片的平均ROI数量为1.13（R2 = 0.93；CADx = 0.99）。与孤立的微钙化相比，Cyclopus对肿块更敏感（208对62个ROI；R2 = 90对213；CADx = 192对130）。