Objective: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of two different computer aided detection (CAD) systems for mammography in improving radiological diagnosis in the search of microcalcification clusters. The CAD systems used are: the SecondLooktrade mark (CADx Medical Systems, Canada) commercial system and the CALMA (computer assisted library in MAmmography) research CAD system. Three radiologists were asked to read mammographic images with and without the support of the CAD systems.
Material and methods: Three radiologists with respectively 3, 5 and 7 years of practice in mammogram reading in an Italian public hospital analysed a dataset composed of 120 digitized mammograms of healthy subjects with no lesion (proven by a radiological follow up of at least 3 years) and 70 images of patients with malignant cluster of microcalcification (proven by histopathological examination) both with no CAD support as well as with the help of the SecondLooktrade mark system. After 3 months they were asked to observe the same digitized mammograms with the assistance of the CALMA system. The radiologists worked independently and were unaware of the final diagnosis. The values of the area A(z) under the ROC curve, diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and diagnostic accuracy were evaluated with and without the support of the CAD systems. The reading time and qualitative evaluations of each radiologist were also reported.
Results: With the support of the two CAD systems an improvement in A(z) area was obtained ranging from 0.01 to 0.04. Sensitivity increased from +8.6 to +15.7% and specificity decreased from 0.8 to 4.2%.
Conclusion: In our study, not conditioned by the dataset, the CAD systems as second reader produced an increase in overall sensitivity of up to 15.7%, with a little decrease in specificity of up to 4.2%. Based on these results both CAD systems might be used in the current practise to improve the sensitivity values of conventional reading (radiologist alone). The results of this study show that no significant differences exist in term of A(z), sensitivity and specificity between CALMA and CADx.