Probability modeling applied to CAD systems for mammography

International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance - Tập 17 Số 3 - Trang 125-134 - 2004
JohnMaleyeff1, Laura B.Newell2, Frank C.Kaminsky3
1Associate Professor, Lally School of Management and Technology, at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Hartford, Connecticut, USA
2Graduate Student, Department of Engineering and Science, at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Hartford, Connecticut, USA
3Professor Emeritus, College of Engineering, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA

Tóm tắt

A practical model based on basic probability theory is developed to evaluate the operational and financial performance of mammography systems. The model is intended to be used by decision makers to evaluate overall sensitivity, overall specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and expected cost. As an illustration, computer aided detection (CAD) systems that support a radiologist's diagnosis are compared with standard mammography to determine conditions that would support their use. The model's input parameters include the operational performance of mammography (with and without CAD), the age of the patient, the cost of administering the mammogram and the expected costs associated with false positive and false negative outcomes. Sensitivity analyses are presented that show the CAD system projecting financial benefit over ranges of uncertainty associated with each model parameter.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Arnold, K. and Eckstein, D. (2000), “Factors identified that can lead to false‐positive mammograms”, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 92 No. 20, pp. 1625‐7.

Baker, J.A., Kornguth, P.J., Lo, J.Y. and Floyd, C.E. (1996), “Artificial neural network: improving the quality of breast biopsy recommendation”, Radiology, Vol. 198 No. 1, pp. 131‐5.

Berenson, M.L., Levine, D.M. and Krehbiel, T.C. (2004), Basic Business Statistics: Concepts and Applications, 9th ed., Prentice‐Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Berg, A.O. (2002), “The mammography debate”, American Family Physician, Vol. 66 No. 12, pp. 2211‐12.

Berube, M., Curpen, B., Ugolini, P., Lalonde, L. and Ouimet‐Oliva, D. (1998), “Level of suspicion of a mammographic lesion: use of features defined by BI‐RADS lexicon and correlation with large‐core breast biopsy”, Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 223‐8.

Brown, M.L., Houn, F., Sickles, E.A. and Kessler, L.G. (1995), “Screening mammography in community practice: positive predictive value of abnormal findings and yield of follow‐up diagnostic procedures”, American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 165 No. 6, pp. 1373‐7.

Castellino, R.A. (2001), “Computer‐aided detection: an overview”, Supplement to Applied Radiology, Vol. 30 No. 11, pp. 5‐8.

Cawson, J. (2000), “Debate: screening for breast cancer: false positives expensive”, Breast News: Newsletter of the NHMRC National Breast Cancer Centre, Vol. 6 No. 1.

Christiansen, C., Wang, F., Barton, M.B., Kreuter, W., Elmore, J.G., Gelfand, A.E. and Fletcher, S.W. (2000), “Predicting the cumulative risk of false‐positive mammograms”, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 92 No. 20, pp. 1657‐66.

Elmore, J.G., Miglioretti, D.L., Reisch, L.M., Barton, M.B., Kreuter, W., Christiansen, C.L. and Fletcher, S.W. (2002), “Screening mammograms by community radiologists: variability in false‐positive rates”, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 94 No. 18, pp. 1373‐80.

Feig, S.A. (2001), “Clinical detection of computer‐aided detection: screening mammography”, Supplement to Applied Radiology, Vol. 30 No. 11, pp. 9‐12.

Kaminsky, F.C., Benneyan, J.C. and Mullins, D.L. (1997), “Mathematical models for evaluating overall system sensitivity, specificity, and cost for automated rescreening in cervical cytology”, Acta Cytologica, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 209‐23.

Kerlikowske, K., Grady, D., Barclay, J., Frankel, S.D., Ominsky, S.H., Sickles, E.A. and Ernster, W. (1998), “Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American College of Radiology breast‐imaging reporting and data system”, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 90 No. 23, pp. 1801‐9.

Kolata, G. (2002a), “Breast cancer: mammography finds more tumors. Then the debate begins”, New York Times, April 9, p. F.5.

Kolata, G. (2002b), “A new view of malignancy”, New York Times, April 9, p. F.1.

Moody‐Ayers, S.Y., Wells, C.K. and Feinstein, A.R. (2000), “‘Benign’ tumors and ‘early detection’ in mammography‐screened patients of a natural cohort with breast cancer”, Archives of Internal Medicine, Vol. 160 No. 8, pp. 1109‐15.

National Cancer Institute (2002), “NCI statement on mammography screening”, available at: www.nci.nih.gov/ (accessed January 31).

Olsen, O. and Gotzche, P. (2001), “Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography”, The Lancet, Vol. 358, pp. 1340‐2.

Orel, S.G., Kay, N., Reynolds, C. and Sullivan, D.C. (1999), “BI‐RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy”, Radiology, Vol. 211 No. 3, pp. 845‐50.

Pisano, E.D., Earp, J., Schell, M., Vokaty, K. and Denham, A. (1998), “Screening behavior of women after a false‐positive mammogram”, Radiology, Vol. 208 No. 1, pp. 245‐9.

Poplack, S.P., Tosteson, A.N., Grove, M.R., Wells, W.A. and Carney, P.A. (2000), “Mammography in 53,803 women from the New Hampshire Mammography Network”, Radiology, Vol. 217, pp. 832‐40.

Thurfjell, E., Thurfjell, M.G., Egge, E. and Bjurstam, N. (1998), “Sensitivity and specificity of computer‐assisted breast cancer detection in mammography screening”, Acta Radiologica, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 384‐8.

Warren Burhenne, L.J., Wood, S.A., D'Orsi, C.J., Feig, S.A., Kopans, D.B., O'Shaughnessy, K.F., Sickles, E.A., Tabar, L., Vyborny, C.J. and Castellino, R.A. (2000), “Potential contribution of computer‐aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography”, Radiology, Vol. 215, pp. 554‐62.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance

Tập 17 Số 3

125-134

Thông tin tác giả