PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Cherie M Kuzmiak

Publications and source records attributed to Cherie M Kuzmiak.

13 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2026

Artificial intelligence-supported double reading in European population breast cancer screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective programs.

BACKGROUND: Most European population mammography screening programs rely on double reading with arbitration, a model that delivers mortality benefit but is increasingly challenged by radiologist workload, variable specificity, and interval cancers. Artificial intelligence (AI) is being evaluated to support or optimize these established European screening pathways. PURPOSE: To synthesize prospective or program-embedded evaluations of AI conducted within European-style population screening programs and to estimate exploratory program-level absolute risk differences (RDs) per 1000 examinations for cancer detection rate (CDR) and recall. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a prespecified, focused evidence synthesis of three large studies embedded within routine population screening programs operating under European-relevant workflows: MASAI (randomized AI-supported risk triage within a national program), ScreenTrustCAD (prospective paired-reader evaluation with AI as an independent reader in a double-reading framework), and PRAIM (nationwide decision-referral implementation). Outcomes were harmonized as AI-control RDs per 1000 examinations. Random-effects pooling used Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman models. For the paired-reader design, sensitivity analyses applied a Kish effective sample-size approach across plausible within-examination correlations (ρ = 0.3-0.8). Positive predictive value (PPV) and workflow/time outcomes were summarized descriptively. RESULTS: Across 597,419 examinations, the pooled CDR RD was +0.9 per 1000 (95% CI -0.0 to +1.8; I2 ≈ 12%), consistent with a modest directional increase with borderline statistical uncertainty. The pooled recall RD was -0.6 per 1000 (95% CI -3.1 to +2.1; I2 ≈ 41-43%), indicating no consistent recall increase across screening programs. Where reported, PPV was higher with AI-supported screening. Efficiency signals included 44.3% fewer total readings in MASAI and shorter reading times for AI-normal examinations in PRAIM; in PRAIM, a program-level safety-net mechanism recovered 204 cancers that would otherwise have been missed. CONCLUSION: In European population screening programs characterized by double reading and arbitration, prospective program-embedded evidence suggests that AI integration may yield a small absolute increase in cancer detection (≈1/1000) without a consistent increase in recall, alongside improved PPV and efficiency signals. These findings suggestAI primarily as a complementary reader within European screening workflows, with implementation requiring explicit quality assurance and monitoring of interval cancers and stage distribution.

Humans↗
PubMed2007

Feasibility of breast preserving therapy with single fraction in situ radiotherapy delivered intraoperatively.

BACKGROUND: Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) has gained widespread interest as a means of improving the convenience and availability of breast conserving radiotherapy. Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) is an APBI technique that delivers breast radiotherapy as a single dose at the time of partial mastectomy. We adapted the technique of Veronesi to deliver IORT prior to tumor excision to improve delivery to the region at risk and reduce the volume of normal tissue irradiated. METHODS: Patients age >or=55 with ultrasonographically defined tumors <or=3 cm and invasive ductal carcinoma confirmed by core biopsy were eligible. Pre-operative ultrasound was performed at the time of needle localization and radiocolloid injection. IORT treatment planning was performed prior to surgery using ultrasound tumor definition, selecting cone size and electron energy to optimize dose distribution. In the operating room, the surgeon retracted the skin over the tumor, cone was placed and radiotherapy delivered. Standard partial mastectomy was then performed. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients were enrolled in the study. Eighteen patients completed IORT with 10 patients having successful IORT no additional local therapy necessary. In five patients, the intraoperative radiation therapy served as the boost and in three patients unsuspected larger tumors or multicentric disease necessitated a mastectomy. The majority of patients had a good to excellent cosmetic result. CONCLUSIONS: Single fraction in situ IORT prior to partial mastectomy is feasible for patients with small breast cancers in achieving a good to excellent cosmetic result. Based on this early preliminary data, we plan to expand our feasibility trial.

Aged↗
PubMed2006

Consensus review: A method of assessment of calcifications that appropriately undergo a six-month follow-up.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Breast calcifications seen on mammography may be associated with benign conditions or malignancies. Accurate characterization of these calcifications is crucial to providing optimal care that may spare women unnecessary biopsies and appropriately allow interval mammography. The purpose of this study is to determine if consensus characterization of calcifications by two breast imaging experts using standardized criteria can establish that follow-up is a safe option. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this retrospective study, our breast imaging database was reviewed and the cases imaged between the years 1999 and 2001 were used to identify patients with calcifications who were recommended for a six-month follow-up or biopsy. All cases had been prospectively assessed by at least two expert breast imagers using standardized features to assess the findings before a recommendation for follow-up or a biopsy was made. A retrospective chart review examining the radiology reports was done to determine the percentage of women from each of the two groups who developed malignancies. RESULTS: Of 744 patients who had mammographically identified clusters of calcifications, 490 clusters (409 single and 81 multiple) were diagnosed as probably-benign, and a short-interval 6-month follow-up was recommended. Of these calcifications followed for three years, only two (0.5%) of the single clusters proved to be malignant, and malignancy was diagnosed at the 12-month follow-up examination. In both cases, the women were diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Of 254 clusters recommended for biopsy, 242 (215 single and 27 multiple) underwent biopsy. A total of 70 cancers were diagnosed: 54 (77.1%) were DCIS and 16 (22.9%) were primary invasive mammary carcinoma (10 cases of invasive ductal carcinoma, 3 cases of invasive lobular carcinoma, 2 cases of invasive ductal carcinoma with DCIS, and one case of invasive mucinous carcinoma with DCIS). Twenty-nine percent of women who had a biopsy performed had calcifications associated with malignancy. In contrast, in the women whose calcifications were followed by mammography, only 0.5% went on to develop malignancies. CONCLUSION: Consensus review of calcifications by two breast imagers using standardized criteria is a safe follow-up option.

Breast Diseases↗
PubMed2006

The positive predictive value for diagnosis of breast cancer full-field digital mammography versus film-screen mammography in the diagnostic mammographic population.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Diagnostic mammography is performed on women with clinical symptoms that suggest breast cancer or women for whom further mammographic evaluation has been requested because of an abnormal screening mammography. We assessed whether the use of full-field digital mammography would improve the positive predictive value (PPV) for the diagnosis of breast cancer in a diagnostic population compared with film-screen mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2002 to December 2003, 11,621 patients underwent diagnostic mammography at the University of North Carolina Hospital, Chapel Hill. Among these 11,621 patients, 1400 lesions in 1121 patients underwent biopsy. We included the biopsy-performed lesions, so PPV3 was used for comparison of PPVs between film-screen mammography and full-field digital mammography. Six breast radiologists interpreted the images using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System of the American College of Radiology. PPV3s were compared between film-screen and full-field digital mammography in the entire study cohort and in specified subgroups according to different radiologists, breast density, and lesion type on mammography. The chi(2) and Fisher's exact tests were used for comparison of PPV3s between two modalities of mammography with the Bonferroni procedure for subgroup analysis. RESULTS: In the entire study cohort, PPV3s of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography were similar (difference in PPV3,-0.007; 95% confidence interval, -0.081 to 0.068; P = .8602). In predefined subgroups, there was no difference in PPV3 by the radiologist, breast density, or lesion type between two modalities of mammography (P > .005). CONCLUSION: There is no improvement in PPV for the diagnosis of breast cancer with full-field digital mammography compared with film-screen mammography in a large diagnostic population.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Comparison of LCD and CRT displays based on efficacy for digital mammography.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To compare two display technologies, cathode ray tube (CRT) and liquid crystal display (LCD), in terms of diagnostic accuracy for several common clinical tasks in digital mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Simulated masses and microcalcifications were inserted into normal digital mammograms to produce an image set of 400 images. Images were viewed on one CRT and one LCD medical-quality display device by five experienced breast-imaging radiologists who rated the images using a categorical rating paradigm. The observer data were analyzed to determine overall classification accuracy, overall lesion detection accuracy, and accuracy for four specific diagnostic tasks: detection of benign masses, malignant masses, and microcalcifications, and discrimination of benign and malignant masses. RESULTS: Radiologists had similar overall classification accuracy (LCD: 0.83 +/- 0.01, CRT: 0.82 +/- 0.01) and lesion detection accuracy (LCD: 0.87 +/- 0.01, CRT: 0.85 +/- 0.01) on both displays. The difference in accuracy between LCD and CRT for the detection of benign masses, malignant masses, and microcalcifications, and discrimination of benign and malignant masses was -0.019 +/- 0.009, 0.020 +/- 0.008, 0.012 +/- 0.013, and 0.0094 +/- 0.011, respectively. Overall, the two displays did not exhibit any statistically significant difference (P > .05). CONCLUSION: This study explored the suitability of two different soft-copy displays for the viewing of mammographic images. It found that LCD and CRT displays offer similar clinical utility for mammographic tasks.

Breast Neoplasms↗
PubMed2006

Comparison of calcification specificity in digital mammography using soft-copy display versus screen-film mammography.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare specificity in the interpretation of calcifications in soft-copy reviewing of digital mammograms versus hard-copy reviewing of screen-film mammograms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 130 consecutive cases with calcifications (44 malignant and 86 benign) that had been evaluated with needle or surgical biopsy were collected. Both screen-film mammography and soft-copy digital mammography were obtained in the same patients under existing research protocols using Fischer Imaging's SenoScan (n = 71), Lorad's digital mammography system (n = 35), and GE Healthcare's Senographe 2000D (n = 24). Eight trained radiologists scored all lesions--cropped or masked to display just the region of interest--both on screen-film and soft-copy digital mammography with a month between reviews to reduce the effects of learning and memory. A 5-point malignancy scale was used, with 1 as definitely not, 2 as probably not, 3 as possibly, 4 as probably, and 5 as definitely. Reviewers were randomly assigned condition order, and images within each condition were randomly ordered. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to test for differences between conditions in specificity computed via nonparametric receiver operating characteristic (ROC) study separately for each reviewer and condition. RESULTS: Across all reviewers, the mean specificity for 1 or 2 versus 3, 4, or 5 was 0.803 for screen-film mammography (range, 0.413-0.938; SD +/- 0.166) and 0.833 for soft-copy image (range, 0.375-0.951; SD +/- 0.187). Although not statistically significant (Student's t test p values from 0.19 to 0.99 across all cut points), numeric values of specificity were consistently higher for soft-copy versus screen-film mammography. No statistical significance in specificity was seen using all possible cut points in the 5-point scale, although the primary analysis used the cutpoint for differentiation between benign and malignant cases as 1 or 2 versus 3, 4, or 5. CONCLUSION: No statistically significant difference was shown in specificity achievable using soft-copy digital versus screen-film mammography in this study.

Biopsy↗
PubMed2005

A comparative study of mobile electronic data entry systems for clinical trials data collection.

PURPOSE: To determine the speed, accuracy, ease of use, and user satisfaction of various electronic data entry platforms for use in the collection of mammography clinical trials data. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Four electronic data entry platforms were tested: standalone personal digital assistant (PDA), Tablet PC, digitizer Tablet/PDA Hybrid (DTP Hybrid), and digital pen (d-pen). Standard paper data entry was used as control. Each of five radiologist readers was assigned to enter interpretations for 20 screening mammograms using three out of the five data entry methods. Assistants recorded both start and stop data entry times of the radiologists and the number of help requests made. Data were checked for handwriting recognition accuracy for the d-pen platform using handwriting verification software. A user satisfaction survey was administered at the end of each platform reading session. RESULTS: Tablet PC and d-pen were statistically equivalent to conventional pen and paper in initial data entry speed. Average verification time for d-pen was significantly less than secondary electronic data entry of paper forms (p-value <0.001). The number of errors in handwriting recognition for d-pen was less than secondary electronic data entry of the paper forms data. Users were most satisfied with Tablet PC, d-pen, and conventional pen and paper for data entry. CONCLUSIONS: Tablet PC and d-pen are equally fast and easy-to-use data entry methods that are well tolerated by radiologist users. Handwriting recognition review and correction for the d-pen is significantly faster and more accurate than secondary manual keyboard and mouse data entry.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2005

Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to contrast and spatial resolution in tissue equivalent breast phantoms.

To determine if the improved contrast resolution of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) with reduced spatial resolution allows for superior or equal phantom object detection compared with screen-film mammography (SFM). Tissue equivalent breast phantoms simulating an adipose to glandular ratio of 50/50,30/70, and 20/80 were imaged according to each manufacturers' recommendation with four full-field digital mammography units (Fuji, Sectra, Fischer, and General Electric) and a screen-film mammography unit (MammoMatII 2000, Siemens, Munich, Germany). A total of 20 images were obtained in both hard- and soft-copy formats. For the purpose of soft-copy display, the screen-film hard-copy images were digitized with a 50 microm micron scanner. Six radiologists, experts in breast imaging, and three physicists, experts in scoring mammography phantoms, participated in a reader study where each reader scored each phantom for visibility of line-pairs and for 24 objects (fibers, clusters of specks, and masses). The data were recorded, entered into a database, and analyzed by a mixed-effect model. The limiting spatial resolution in line-pairs per millimeter visible with the digital units was less, regardless of display modality used, than that provided by the screen-film unit. The difference was statistically significant for the General Electric (p < 0.01) and Fuji digital mammography units (p = 0.03). With respect to the number of visible objects, a statistically significant higher number could be detected with the screen-film unit as compared to the Fischer (p < 0.01) and Sectra (p < 0.01) digital mammography units, but there was no significant difference between the other digital units and screen film. Overall, there was significantly better performance on the 50/50 phantom than with the 30/70 and 20/80 phantoms (p = 0.01, p < 0.01) for object visibility. For the digital mammography units, soft-copy display performed better than hard-copy display for the Fischer and Sectra images, but worse for Fuji and General Electric. In addition, soft-copy display of digitized screen-film images was significantly better than hard-copy display (p =0.02) of the original screen films for object visibility, but worse for spatial resolution. The higher contrast resolution of the FFDM units tested did not result in improved detection of line-pair resolution or objects in the phantoms tested versus screen-film mammography. The phantom performance of a digital mammography unit seems to be influenced by the type of detection task (line-pair resolution versus object visibility), the display modality (soft-copy versus hard-copy) chosen to score the phantoms, and the parenchymal pattern composition of the phantom.

Breast Neoplasms↗
PubMed2004

The role of magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis and management of breast cancer.

A review of the literature on the current applications of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) indications, their rationale and their place in diagnosis and management of breast cancer was given. Contrast-enhanced breast MRI is developing as a valuable adjunct to mammography and sonography. Its high sensitivity for invasive breast cancer establishes its superiority in evaluation of multifocality/multicentricity, tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, detection of recurrence, and staging. Emerging applications include spectroscopy, usage of new contrast agents, and MRI-guided interventions, including noninvasive treatment of breast cancer. Its potential benefit in screening high-risk women has yet to be established with prospective studies, particularly with regard to false positive results.

Breast Neoplasms↗
PubMed2003

Diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography in patients with dense breasts who underwent problem-solving mammography: effects of image processing and lesion type.

PURPOSE: To determine effects of lesion type (calcification vs mass) and image processing on radiologist's performance for area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity for detection of masses and calcifications with digital mammography in women with mammographically dense breasts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 201 women who underwent digital mammography at seven U.S. and Canadian medical centers. Three image-processing algorithms were applied to the digital images, which were acquired with Fischer, General Electric, and Lorad digital mammography units. Eighteen readers participated in the reader study (six readers per algorithm). Baseline values for reader performance with screen-film mammograms were obtained through the additional interpretation of 179 screen-film mammograms. A repeated-measures analysis of covariance allowing unequal slopes was used in each of the nine analyses (AUC, sensitivity, and specificity for each of three machines). Bonferroni correction was used. RESULTS: Although lesion type did not affect the AUC or sensitivity for Fischer digital images, it did affect specificity (P =.0004). For the General Electric digital images, AUC, sensitivity, and specificity were not affected by lesion type. For Lorad digital images, the results strongly suggested that lesion type affected AUC and sensitivity (P <.0001). None of the three image-processing methods tested affected the AUC, sensitivity, or specificity for the Fischer, General Electric, or Lorad digital images. CONCLUSION: Findings in this study indicate that radiologist's interpretation accuracy in interpreting digital mammograms depends on lesion type. Interpretation accuracy was not influenced by the image-processing method.

Area Under Curve↗
PubMed2002

Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to diagnostic accuracy of lesion characterization in breast tissue biopsy specimens.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: This study was performed to investigate whether full-field digital mammography (FFDM) is at least as accurate as screen-film mammography with respect to breast lesion characterization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-nine breast surgical specimens were obtained by means of preoperative needle localization with surgical excision from 79 patients. The specimens were imaged with both screen-film mammography and FFDM. Six radiologists specialized in breast imaging analyzed both sets of images and characterized the visualized lesions on a five-point scale: 1, definitely not malignant; 2, probably not malignant; 3, possibly malignant; 4, probably malignant; and 5, definitely malignant. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of the data was then performed to assess for differences between modalities in the radiologists' ability to predict breast malignancy. RESULTS: The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for the prediction of breast malignancy in surgical biopsy specimens were not statistically significantly different for FFDM and screen-film mammography. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate that with breast surgical specimens, FFDM is similar in diagnostic accuracy to screen-film mammography.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display.

PURPOSE: To compare the speed and accuracy of the interpretations of digital mammograms by radiologists by using printed-film versus soft-copy display. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After being trained in interpretation of digital mammograms, eight radiologists interpreted 63 digital mammograms, all with old studies for comparison. All studies were interpreted by all readers in soft-copy and printed-film display, with interpretations of images in the same cases at least 1 month apart. Mammograms were interpreted in cases that included six biopsy-proved cancers and 20 biopsy-proved benign lesions, 20 cases of probably benign findings in patients who underwent 6-month follow-up, and 17 cases without apparent findings. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (A(z)), sensitivity, and specificity were calculated for soft-copy and printed-film display. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the speed of interpretation, but interpretations with soft-copy display were slightly faster. The differences in A(z), sensitivity, and specificity were not significantly different; A(z) and sensitivity were slightly better for interpretations with printed film, and specificity was slightly better for interpretations with soft copy. CONCLUSION: Interpretation with soft-copy display is likely to be useful with digital mammography and is unlikely to significantly change accuracy or speed.

Breast Diseases↗