Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 24, 2026
Detection of Architectural Distortion in Prior Mammograms via Analysis of Oriented Patterns
Published on: August 30, 2013
Computer-aided detection system performance on current and previous digital mammograms in patients with contralateral
Seung Ja Kim1, Woo Kyung Moon, Nariya Cho
1Department of Radiology, Seoul Metropolitan Government - Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, Korea.
Background:
The computer-aided detection (CAD) system is widely used for screening mammography. The performance of the CAD system for contralateral breast cancer has not been reported for women with a history of breast cancer.
Purpose:
To retrospectively evaluate the performance of a CAD system on current and previous mammograms in patients with contralateral metachronous breast cancer.
Material And Methods:
During a 3-year period, 4945 postoperative patients had follow-up examinations, from whom we selected 55 women with contralateral breast cancers. Among them, 38 had visible malignant signs on the current mammograms. We analyzed the sensitivity and false-positive marks of the system on the current and previous mammograms according to lesion type and breast density.
Results:
The total visible lesion components on the current mammograms included 27 masses and 14 calcifications in 38 patients. The case-based sensitivity for all lesion types was 63.2% (24/38) with false-positive marks of 0.71 per patient. The lesion-based sensitivity for masses and calcifications was 59.3% (16/27) and 71.4% (10/14), respectively. The lesion-based sensitivity for masses in fatty and dense breasts was 68.8% (11/16) and 45.5% (5/11), respectively. The lesion-based sensitivity for calcifications in fatty and dense breasts was 100.0% (3/3) and 63.6% (7/11), respectively. The total visible lesion components on the previous mammograms included 13 masses and three calcifications in 16 patients, and the sensitivity for all lesion types was 31.3% (5/16) with false-positive marks of 0.81 per patient. On these mammograms, the sensitivity for masses and calcifications was 30.8% (4/13) and 33.3% (1/3), respectively. The sensitivity in fatty and dense breasts was 28.6% (2/7) and 33.3% (3/9), respectively.
Conclusion:
In the women with a history of breast cancer, the sensitivity of the CAD system in visible contralateral breast cancer was lower than in most previous reports using the same CAD system probably due to the relatively small size, subtlety of the lesion findings, and dense parenchymal pattern.
