Department of Radiology, Diagnostic Image Analysis Group, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Geert Grooteplein-Zuid 10, Route 667, Postbus 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Radiology. 2013 Jan;266(1):123-9. doi: 10.1148/radiol.12120218. Epub 2012 Oct 22.
To compare effectiveness of an interactive computer-aided detection (CAD) system, in which CAD marks and their associated suspiciousness scores remain hidden unless their location is queried by the reader, with the effect of traditional CAD prompts used in current clinical practice for the detection of malignant masses on full-field digital mammograms.
The requirement for institutional review board approval was waived for this retrospective observer study. Nine certified screening radiologists and three residents who were trained in breast imaging read 200 studies (63 studies containing at least one screen-detected mass, 17 false-negative studies, 20 false-positive studies, and 100 normal studies) twice, once with CAD prompts and once with interactive CAD. Localized findings were reported and scored by the readers. In the prompted mode, findings were recorded before and after activation of CAD. The partial area under the location receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for an interval of low false-positive fractions typical for screening, from 0 to 0.2, was computed for each reader and each mode. Differences in reader performance were analyzed by using software.
The average partial area under the location ROC curve with unaided reading was 0.57, and it increased to 0.62 with interactive CAD, while it remained unaffected by prompts. The difference in reader performance for unaided reading versus interactive CAD was statistically significant (P = .009).
When used as decision support, interactive use of CAD for malignant masses on mammograms may be more effective than the current use of CAD, which is aimed at the prevention of perceptual oversights.
比较一种交互式计算机辅助检测(CAD)系统的有效性,该系统的 CAD 标记及其相关可疑分数在未被读者查询其位置时保持隐藏状态,与当前临床实践中用于全数字化乳腺摄影中恶性肿块检测的传统 CAD 提示的效果进行比较。
本回顾性观察者研究豁免了机构审查委员会的批准要求。9 名经过认证的筛查放射科医生和 3 名接受过乳房成像培训的住院医师两次阅读了 200 项研究(63 项研究包含至少一个筛查发现的肿块,17 项假阴性研究,20 项假阳性研究和 100 项正常研究),一次使用 CAD 提示,一次使用交互式 CAD。读者报告并评分局部发现。在提示模式下,在激活 CAD 前后记录发现。对于筛查中典型的低假阳性分数(0 到 0.2)的间隔,计算了每个读者和每个模式的位置接收者操作特征(ROC)曲线的部分面积。使用软件分析读者表现的差异。
未辅助阅读的位置 ROC 曲线的平均部分面积为 0.57,使用交互式 CAD 增加到 0.62,而提示对其没有影响。未辅助阅读与交互式 CAD 相比,读者表现的差异具有统计学意义(P =.009)。
当用作决策支持时,与旨在防止感知疏忽的当前 CAD 相比,在 mammograms 上使用 CAD 进行恶性肿块的交互式使用可能更有效。