Share Email Print
cover

Proceedings Paper

Diagnostic performance of radiologists with and without different CAD systems for mammography
Author(s): Adele Lauria; Maria Evelina Fantacci; Ubaldo Bottigli; Pasquale Delogu; Francesco Fauci; Bruno Golosio; Pietro Luigi Indovina; Giovanni Luca Masala; Piernicola Oliva; Rosa Palmiero; Giuseppe Raso; Simone Stumbo; Sabina Tangaro
Format Member Price Non-Member Price
PDF $14.40 $18.00
cover GOOD NEWS! Your organization subscribes to the SPIE Digital Library. You may be able to download this paper for free. Check Access

Paper Abstract

The purpose of this study is the evaluation of the variation of performance in terms of sensitivity and specificity of two radiologists with different experience in mammography, with and without the assistance of two different CAD systems. The CAD considered are SecondLookTM (CADx Medical Systems, Canada), and CALMA (Computer Assisted Library in MAmmography). The first is a commercial system, the other is the result of a research project, supported by INFN (Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Italy); their characteristics have already been reported in literature. To compare the results with and without these tools, a dataset composed by 70 images of patients with cancer (biopsy proven) and 120 images of healthy breasts (with a three years follow up) has been collected. All the images have been digitized and analysed by two CAD, then two radiologists with respectively 6 and 2 years of experience in mammography indipendently made their diagnosis without and with, the support of the two CAD systems. In this work sensitivity and specificity variation, the Az area under the ROC curve, are reported. The results show that the use of a CAD allows for a substantial increment in sensitivity and a less pronounced decrement in specificity. The extent of these effects depends on the experience of the readers and is comparable for the two CAD considered.

Paper Details

Date Published: 22 May 2003
PDF: 6 pages
Proc. SPIE 5034, Medical Imaging 2003: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, (22 May 2003); doi: 10.1117/12.480079
Show Author Affiliations
Adele Lauria, Univ. degli Studi di Napoli Federico II (Italy)
Maria Evelina Fantacci, INFN (Italy)
Univ. degli Studi di Pisa (Italy)
Ubaldo Bottigli, INFN di Cagliari (Italy)
Univ. degli Studi di Sassari (Italy)
Pasquale Delogu, INFN (Italy)
Univ. degli Studi di Pisa (Italy)
Francesco Fauci, Univ. degli Studi di Palermo (Italy)
Bruno Golosio, INFN di Cagliari (Italy)
Univ. degli Studi di Sassari (Italy)
Pietro Luigi Indovina, Univ. degli Studi di Napoli Federico II (Italy)
Giovanni Luca Masala, INFN di Cagliari (Italy)
Univ. degli Studi di Sassari (Italy)
Piernicola Oliva, INFN di Cagliari (Italy)
Univ. degli Studi di Sassari (Italy)
Rosa Palmiero, Univ. degli Studi di Napoli Federico II (Italy)
Giuseppe Raso, Univ. degli Studi di Palermo (Italy)
Simone Stumbo, INFN di Cagliari (Italy)
Univ. degli studi di Sassari (Italy)
Sabina Tangaro, INFN (Italy)
Univ. degli Studi di Pisa (Italy)


Published in SPIE Proceedings Vol. 5034:
Medical Imaging 2003: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment
Dev P. Chakraborty; Elizabeth A. Krupinski, Editor(s)

© SPIE. Terms of Use
Back to Top