Research article

Variable size computer-aided detection prompts and mammography film reader decisions

Fiona J Gilbert¹ , Susan M Astley² , Caroline RM Boggis³ , Magnus A McGee⁴ , Pamela M Griffiths⁵ , Stephen W Duffy⁶ , Olorunsola F Agbaje⁶ , Maureen GC Gillan¹ , Mary Wilson³ , Anil K Jain³ , Nicola Barr³ , Ursula M Beetles³ , Miriam A Griffiths³ , Jill Johnson³ , Rita M Roberts³ , Heather E Deans⁷ , Karen A Duncan⁷ and Geeta Iyengar¹

¹Division of Applied Medicine, School of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Aberdeen, Lilian Sutton Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UK

²Division of Imaging Science & Biomedical Engineering, University of Manchester, Stopford Building, Oxford Road, Manchester M23 9LT, UK

³Breast Screening Unit, Nightingale Centre & Genesis Prevention Centre, Wythenshawe Hospital, Southmoor Road, Manchester M23 9LT, UK

⁴Department of Public Health & General Practice, Christchurch School of Medicine & Health Sciences, University of Otago, Riccarton Avenue, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand

⁵North West Genetics Knowledge Park (Nowgen), The Nowgen Centre, 29 Grafton Street Manchester M13 9WU, UK

⁶Department of Epidemiology, Mathematics & Statistics, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK

⁷North East Scotland Breast Screening Centre, Foresterhill Road, Aberdeen AB25 2XF, UK

author email corresponding author email

Breast Cancer Research 2008, 10:R72doi:10.1186/bcr2137

Published:	25 August 2008

Abstract

Introduction

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effect of computer-aided detection (CAD) prompts on reader behaviour in a large sample of breast screening mammograms by analysing the relationship of the presence and size of prompts to the recall decision.

Methods

Local research ethics committee approval was obtained; informed consent was not required. Mammograms were obtained from women attending routine mammography at two breast screening centres in 1996. Films, previously double read, were re-read by a different reader using CAD. The study material included 315 cancer cases comprising all screen-detected cancer cases, all subsequent interval cancers and 861 normal cases randomly selected from 10,267 cases. Ground truth data were used to assess the efficacy of CAD prompting. Associations between prompt attributes and tumour features or reader recall decisions were assessed by chi-squared tests.

Results

There was a highly significant relationship between prompting and a decision to recall for cancer cases and for a random sample of normal cases (P < 0.001). Sixty-four per cent of all cases contained at least one CAD prompt. In cancer cases, larger prompts were more likely to be recalled (P = 0.02) for masses but there was no such association for calcifications (P = 0.9). In a random sample of 861 normal cases, larger prompts were more likely to be recalled (P = 0.02) for both mass and calcification prompts. Significant associations were observed with prompting and breast density (p = 0.009) for cancer cases but not for normal cases (P = 0.05).

Conclusions

For both normal cases and cancer cases, prompted mammograms were more likely to be recalled and the prompt size was also associated with a recall decision.