Skip Navigation

JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2004 96(3):162-163; doi:10.1093/jnci/djh049
© 2004 by Oxford University Press
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Correction (v96,p719)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (10)
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Elmore, J. G.
Right arrow Articles by Carney, P. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Elmore, J. G.
Right arrow Articles by Carney, P. A.
Related Collections
Right arrowCorrespondence about this Article
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 2004 Oxford University Press

EDITORIAL

Computer-Aided Detection of Breast Cancer: Has Promise Outstripped Performance?

Joann G. Elmore, Patricia A. Carney

Affiliations of authors: University of Washington, Seattle, WA (JGE); Dartmouth Medical School, Lebanon, NH (PAC).

Correspondence to: Joann G. Elmore, MD, MPH, University of Washington School of Medicine, Harborview Medical Center, 325 Ninth Ave., Box 359780, Seattle, WA 98104-2499 (e-mail: jelmore@u.washington.edu)

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

The article by Gur et al. (1) in this issue of the Journal makes an important contribution to the literature on mammography screening in that it reports no difference in breast cancer detection and recall rates between mammograms read with computer-aided detection and those interpreted by a single radiologist without computer-aided detection. Gur et al. present the recall rates and cancer detection rates for 56 432 screening mammography examinations interpreted before the introduction of computer-aided detection and 59 139 screening mammography examinations interpreted after the introduction of computer-aided detection in their academic radiology practice. No statistically significant differences were observed in those rates. This finding is both remarkable and disappointing, given that computer-aided detection technology has been approved for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and is already widely used in clinical practice. Its widespread promotion was almost a promissory note to the public that . . . [Full Text of this Article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?

Correspondence about this Article

Re: Computer-Aided Detection of Breast Cancer: Has Promise Outstripped Performance?
David Gur, Jules H. Sumkin, Lara A. Hardesty, and Howard E. Rockette
J Natl Cancer Inst 2004 96: 717-718. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

RESPONSE: Re: Computer-Aided Detection of Breast Cancer: Has Promise Outstripped Performance?
Joann G. Elmore and Patricia A. Carney
J Natl Cancer Inst 2004 96: 718. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
S. H. Taplin, C. M. Rutter, and C. D. Lehman
Testing the effect of computer-assisted detection on interpretive performance in screening mammography.
Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2006; 187(6): 1475 - 1482.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
J. M. Ko, M. J. Nicholas, J. B. Mendel, and P. J. Slanetz
Prospective assessment of computer-aided detection in interpretation of screening mammography.
Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2006; 187(6): 1483 - 1491.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
L. A. L. Khoo, P. Taylor, and R. M. Given-Wilson
Computer-aided Detection in the United Kingdom National Breast Screening Programme: Prospective Study
Radiology, November 1, 2005; 237(2): 444 - 449.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
D. Gur, L. P. Wallace, A. H. Klym, L. A. Hardesty, G. S. Abrams, R. Shah, and J. H. Sumkin
Trends in Recall, Biopsy, and Positive Biopsy Rates for Screening Mammography in an Academic Practice
Radiology, May 1, 2005; 235(2): 396 - 401.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
D. Gur
Technology and Practice Assessment: In Search of a "Desirable" Statement
Radiology, March 1, 2005; 234(3): 659 - 660.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
S. A. Feig, E. A. Sickles, W. P. Evans, and M. N. Linver
Re: Changes in Breast Cancer Detection and Mammography Recall Rates After the Introduction of a Computer-Aided Detection System
J Natl Cancer Inst, August 18, 2004; 96(16): 1260 - 1261.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
D. Gur, J. H. Sumkin, L. A. Hardesty, and H. E. Rockette
Re: Computer-Aided Detection of Breast Cancer: Has Promise Outstripped Performance?
J Natl Cancer Inst, May 5, 2004; 96(9): 717 - 718.
[Full Text] [PDF]