Abstract

The National Health Service Breast Screening Programme is an intensive consumer of radiology time. In principle, screening mammograms must be double read, and this puts considerable strain on human resources. The possibility of using single reading assisted by computer-aided detection rather than double reading is therefore an important research issue. Before expending considerable resources on a prospective randomised trial, we design a retrospective study involving re-reading of previously double-read mammograms (Computer Aided Detection Evaluation Trial). This was an equivalence, powered to assess whether the sensitivity of a single human reader with the R2 system of computer-aided detection was at least no worse than 10% less sensitive than the previous two human readers. Various complications had to be taken account of in the design: • power calculations suggested we needed 15,000 mammograms to give the required number of cancers, but funding was only available to re-read 10,000; • the ethical problem of potential de novo discovery of previously missed cancer; • a limited period of free availability of the R2 system; and • a need to avoid previous readers re-reading the same mammograms. Design strategies to cope with these are described in this poster.

Highlights

  • Neoplastic tissue contains elevated levels of choline-containing metabolites [1,2]

  • We examined the extent to which the lower mammographic sensitivity found in hormone replacement therapy (HRT) users could be explained by any association of HRT use with higher density and more difficult to detect cancers

  • The results suggest that applying compression does not ensure breast thickness reduction and observing physical changes does not guarantee that breast thickness has been minimised

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Neoplastic tissue contains elevated levels of choline-containing metabolites (tCho) [1,2]. The presence of spiculation arising from a mass detected at mammography makes malignancy a probable diagnosis This is confirmed by this review of the first 8 years of screening in East Sussex where only 3.6% of masses with spiculation were benign at excision (24 out of 668), compared with 33.3% of masses without spiculation (102 out of 306). When breast core biopsy reveals lobular neoplasia (lobular carcinoma in situ [LCIS] or atypical lobular hyperplasia [ALH]) a management dilemma follows, as uncertainty regarding the significance of LCIS/ALH exists. Is this an indicator of increased risk of breast cancer or should it be considered a marker for more serious local pathology? Is this an indicator of increased risk of breast cancer or should it be considered a marker for more serious local pathology? Should surgical excision be undertaken in these cases?

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call