Cargando…

Interpretation time for screening mammography as a function of the number of computer-aided detection marks

Purpose: Computer-aided detection (CAD) alerts radiologists to findings potentially associated with breast cancer but is notorious for creating false-positive marks. Although a previous paper found that radiologists took more time to interpret mammograms with more CAD marks, our impression was that...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schwartz, Tayler M., Hillis, Stephen L., Sridharan, Radhika, Lukyanchenko, Olga, Geiser, William, Whitman, Gary J., Wei, Wei, Haygood, Tamara Miner
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6996587/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32042859
http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/1.JMI.7.2.022408
_version_ 1783493538321793024
author Schwartz, Tayler M.
Hillis, Stephen L.
Sridharan, Radhika
Lukyanchenko, Olga
Geiser, William
Whitman, Gary J.
Wei, Wei
Haygood, Tamara Miner
author_facet Schwartz, Tayler M.
Hillis, Stephen L.
Sridharan, Radhika
Lukyanchenko, Olga
Geiser, William
Whitman, Gary J.
Wei, Wei
Haygood, Tamara Miner
author_sort Schwartz, Tayler M.
collection PubMed
description Purpose: Computer-aided detection (CAD) alerts radiologists to findings potentially associated with breast cancer but is notorious for creating false-positive marks. Although a previous paper found that radiologists took more time to interpret mammograms with more CAD marks, our impression was that this was not true in actual interpretation. We hypothesized that radiologists would selectively disregard these marks when present in larger numbers. Approach: We performed a retrospective review of bilateral digital screening mammograms. We use a mixed linear regression model to assess the relationship between number of CAD marks and ln (interpretation time) after adjustment for covariates. Both readers and mammograms were treated as random sampling units. Results: Ten radiologists, with median experience after residency of 12.5 years (range 6 to 24) interpreted 1832 mammograms. After accounting for number of images, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category, and breast density, the number of CAD marks was positively associated with longer interpretation time, with each additional CAD mark proportionally increasing median interpretation time by 4.35% for a typical reader. Conclusions: We found no support for our hypothesis that radiologists will selectively disregard CAD marks when they are present in larger numbers.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6996587
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69965872021-02-03 Interpretation time for screening mammography as a function of the number of computer-aided detection marks Schwartz, Tayler M. Hillis, Stephen L. Sridharan, Radhika Lukyanchenko, Olga Geiser, William Whitman, Gary J. Wei, Wei Haygood, Tamara Miner J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Special Section on Medical Image Perception and Observer Performance Purpose: Computer-aided detection (CAD) alerts radiologists to findings potentially associated with breast cancer but is notorious for creating false-positive marks. Although a previous paper found that radiologists took more time to interpret mammograms with more CAD marks, our impression was that this was not true in actual interpretation. We hypothesized that radiologists would selectively disregard these marks when present in larger numbers. Approach: We performed a retrospective review of bilateral digital screening mammograms. We use a mixed linear regression model to assess the relationship between number of CAD marks and ln (interpretation time) after adjustment for covariates. Both readers and mammograms were treated as random sampling units. Results: Ten radiologists, with median experience after residency of 12.5 years (range 6 to 24) interpreted 1832 mammograms. After accounting for number of images, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category, and breast density, the number of CAD marks was positively associated with longer interpretation time, with each additional CAD mark proportionally increasing median interpretation time by 4.35% for a typical reader. Conclusions: We found no support for our hypothesis that radiologists will selectively disregard CAD marks when they are present in larger numbers. Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers 2020-02-03 2020-03 /pmc/articles/PMC6996587/ /pubmed/32042859 http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/1.JMI.7.2.022408 Text en © 2020 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Published by SPIE under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported License. Distribution or reproduction of this work in whole or in part requires full attribution of the original publication, including its DOI.
spellingShingle Special Section on Medical Image Perception and Observer Performance
Schwartz, Tayler M.
Hillis, Stephen L.
Sridharan, Radhika
Lukyanchenko, Olga
Geiser, William
Whitman, Gary J.
Wei, Wei
Haygood, Tamara Miner
Interpretation time for screening mammography as a function of the number of computer-aided detection marks
title Interpretation time for screening mammography as a function of the number of computer-aided detection marks
title_full Interpretation time for screening mammography as a function of the number of computer-aided detection marks
title_fullStr Interpretation time for screening mammography as a function of the number of computer-aided detection marks
title_full_unstemmed Interpretation time for screening mammography as a function of the number of computer-aided detection marks
title_short Interpretation time for screening mammography as a function of the number of computer-aided detection marks
title_sort interpretation time for screening mammography as a function of the number of computer-aided detection marks
topic Special Section on Medical Image Perception and Observer Performance
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6996587/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32042859
http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/1.JMI.7.2.022408
work_keys_str_mv AT schwartztaylerm interpretationtimeforscreeningmammographyasafunctionofthenumberofcomputeraideddetectionmarks
AT hillisstephenl interpretationtimeforscreeningmammographyasafunctionofthenumberofcomputeraideddetectionmarks
AT sridharanradhika interpretationtimeforscreeningmammographyasafunctionofthenumberofcomputeraideddetectionmarks
AT lukyanchenkoolga interpretationtimeforscreeningmammographyasafunctionofthenumberofcomputeraideddetectionmarks
AT geiserwilliam interpretationtimeforscreeningmammographyasafunctionofthenumberofcomputeraideddetectionmarks
AT whitmangaryj interpretationtimeforscreeningmammographyasafunctionofthenumberofcomputeraideddetectionmarks
AT weiwei interpretationtimeforscreeningmammographyasafunctionofthenumberofcomputeraideddetectionmarks
AT haygoodtamaraminer interpretationtimeforscreeningmammographyasafunctionofthenumberofcomputeraideddetectionmarks