Cancer detection rate

Stephan C, Cammann H, Semjonow A, et al. Multicenter evaluation of an artificial neural network to increase the prostate cancer detection rate and reduce unnecessary biopsies. Cfin Chem 2002 48 1279-87. 

In general, the studies that employed historical controls showed very little increase in the cancer detection rate, while the cross-sectional studies showed approximately 10% increase in the number of cancers detected when CADe was used. [The exceptions to this general result are smaller studies with larger uncertainty (Cupples et al. 2005, Georgian-Smith et al. 2007).] The reason for the difference between the study types is quite subtle (Nishikawa and Pesce 2008). When CADe is introduced, it... 

Most of the clinical studies to date show a comparable increase in the cancer detection rate and recall rate. However, in some studies, the increase in recall rate is much greater than the increase in the cancer detection rate (Fenton et al. 2007). This may be attributed to the time it takes for the radiologists to learn how to use CADe most efficiently (Hall 2007). In one study (Dean and Ilvento 2006), the radiologists recall rate initially increased by over 100% and did not decrease to a reasonable value (which is approximately a 10% increase) until after 22 months of use. This indicates that it takes almost 2 years for some radiologists to be able to judge CADe-detected lesions in the same manner as they judge lesions that... 

Assuming a cancer detection rate of 5 per 1,000 screening exams... 

A total of 3,683 women were included in the study. The recall rate for diagnostic work-up after consensus meeting was 3.5% for SFM and 4.6% for FFDM (p < 0.05). The cancer detection rate in the study group (n = 3,683 women) was significantly higher when compared with women not included in the study (Fisher s exact test, p < 0.05). This was, however, of no importance for the study itself, as the aim was to compare SFM vs. FFDM in a paired study design. A total of 31 cancers were found in the study group (detection rate 0.84%), of which 28 were... 

Table 10.2. Studies comparing screen-film mammography (SFM) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in hreast cancer screening number of examinations, recall rate, cancer detection rate (including invasive cancers and DCIS), and positive predictive value (PPVj) (percentage of cancer among women recalled for diagnostic work-up)...

Detection rate higher (p = 0.007) for cancers manifesting as clustered microcalcifications. SEM historic data from 18 counties. Cancer detection rate borderline significant (p = 0.058). " Performance indicators based on the 42,555 paired examinations. 

The recall rate was 1.4% (372 of 25,901 women) for SFM when compared with 1.0% (102 of 9,841) for FFDM, and this difference was significant (p = 0.003). The cancer detection rate for SFM was 0.31% (81 cancers among 25,901 women) and 0.49% (48 cancers among 9,841 women) for FFDM. The higher detection rate for FFDM was statistically significant (p = 0.01). As a consequence of the lower recall rate and higher cancer detection rate for FFDM, the PPV, was remarkable high for FFDM (47.1%) when compared with SFM (21.8%). Performance indicators from this study are listed in Table 10.2. 

The overall cancer detection rate for FFDM (0.72% or 104 cancers) was higher than that for SFM (0.58% or 84 cancers), but this difference was not significant (Del Turco et al. 2007). However, the detection rate for cancers presenting as clustered microcalcifications was significantly higher for FFDM (0.26% vs. 0.12%,p = 0.007). 

The cancer detection rate was 0.36% for SFM when compared with 0.63% for FFDM, and this higher detection rate for FFDM was also significant (p = 0.02). However, PPVj was comparable for the two techniques, 17.9% for SFM and 24.8% for FFDM ip = 0.162). The authors noted that these performance indicators did not differ significantly between the stationary and mobile unit in the period before digital mammography (Bjurstam et al. 2006). The performance indicators from this study are shown in Table 10.2. 

The cancer detection rate for SFM was 0.39% (29 cancers among the 7,442 examinations) and 0.48% for FFDM (33 of 6,933), and this difference was not significant (p = 0.43). Conclusions regarding the detection rate of DCIS cannot be drawn from this study, as the numbers were too small, 2 DCIS (detection rate 0.27 per 1,000 screened women) were found on SFM and 6 DCIS (detection rate 0.87 per 1,000 screened women) on FFDM. It should be mentioned that the background cancer incidence in the Sogn and Fjordane County was lower than that in the other Norwegian counties. 

Shaw CM, Flanagan FL, Fenlon HM, et al (2009) Consensus review of Discordant findings maximizes cancer detection rate in double-reader screening mammography Irish National Breast Screening Program experience. Radiology 250 354-362. 

A landmark multicenter study published by Pickhardt et al. compared CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy in asymptomatic average-risk patient population. As a screening study, comparable adenoma and colorectal cancer detection rates were reported (Pickhardt et al. 2003). In... 

Soh S, Kattan MW, Berkman S, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT (1997) Has there been a recent shift in the pathological features and prognosis of patients treated with radical prostatectomy J Urol 157 2223-2224 Takenaka A, Hara R, Hyodo Y, Ishimura T, Sakai Y, Fujioka H, Fujii T, Jo Y, Fujisawa M (2006) Transperineal extended biopsy improves the clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate a comparative study of 6 and 12 biopsy cores. Int J Urol 13 10-14... 

---