1. The efficacy of using CAD for detection of
breast cancer in mammography screening – A systematic review
Emilie L. Henriksen1,2, Jonathan F. Carlsen1, Ilse M.M. Vejborg1, Michael B. Nielsen1, Carsten A. Lauridsen1,2
1Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital
2Department of Technology, Faculty of Health and Technology, Metropolitan University College
AIM
The aim of this systematic review was to present an overview of the available empirical evidence concerning the efficacy of using Computer-aided detection (CAD) systems in screening mammography for early detection of breast cancer.
PRELIMINARY RESULTS
Single reading vs. Single reading + CAD:
Cancer detection rate increased significantly in three studies and significantly decreased in one study when using CAD. Two studies showed significantly increased sensitivity and five studies showed significantly increased recall rate.
Double reading vs. single reading + CAD:
One study showed significantly increased cancer detection rate and recall rate. Five studies showed no statistically significant difference between the two reader paradigms.
Figure A
Figure B
Pictures from:
Figure A shows an example of different CAD marks Marks regions suggestive of calcifications Marks regions suggestive of masses/densities/architectural distortion Indicates Calc and Mass marks occurring in the same location on the image
Figure B shows the feature Peerview on a magnified image of the location marked with “+” on figure A Peerview – outlines the central density of the mass and highlights calcifications
METHODS
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines of 2009 was used as a review protocol to prepare this systematic review.
The literature search for this study was performed in the four databases PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library.
Inclusion criteria were that the studies should be clinical human trials written in English concerning the efficacy of computer-aided detection systems for use in a screening population and published within the last ten years.
To make judgments of the risk of bias in each study and the applicability for our study we applied Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool
Flow diagram: PRISMA
CONCLUSION
Single reading with CAD has the potential of increasing the cancer detection rate and sensitivity compared to single reading alone.
Double reading compared to single reading with CAD showed no statistically significant difference in cancer detection rate or sensitivity.
DATA SELECTION
1522 records were screened by abstracts and 1491 were excluded. Of the remaining 31 articles 17 were excluded with reason after full-text reading. The 14 included studies were divided into two groups:
Single reading vs. Single reading + CAD
Double reading vs. Single reading + CAD
Table 1: An example of data extraction from 2 studies