2001 Computed-Assisted Detection Of Interval Breast Cancers Published: European Journal of Radiology 2001; 39: 104-110.   Screening Mammography with CAD: Prospective Study of 12,860 Patients in a Community Breast Center. Authors: Freer TW and Ulissey, MJ. Published: Radiology 2001; 220:781-786. PURPOSE: A prospective clinical study to assess the effect of computer-aided detection (CAD) on the interpretation of 12,860 screening mammograms in a community breast center. CONCLUSION: When comparing the radiologist’s performance without CAD with that when CAD was used, the authors observed the following: (a) an increase in recall rate from 6.5% to 7.7%, (b) no change in the positive predictive value for biopsy at 38%, (c) a 19.5% increase in the number of cancers detected, and (d) an increase in the proportion of early-stage (0 and I) malignancies detected from 73% to 78%. The use of CAD in the interpretation of screening mammograms can increase the detection of early-stage malignancies without undue effect on the recall rate or positive predictive value for biopsy.   A Pilot Evaluation of the R2 ImageChecker System and Users’ Response in the Detection of Interval Breast Cancers on Previous Screening Films Authors: Garvican L and Field S. Published: Clinical Radiology 2001; 56: 833-837.   Radiologist Detection of Microcalcifications With and Without Computer-Aided Detection: A Comparative Study Authors: Brem RF and Schoonjans JM Published: Clinical Radiology 2001; 56: 150-154.   Mammographic Characteristics of 115 Missed Cancers Later Detected with Screening Mammography and the Potential Utility of Computer-Aided Detection Authors: Birdwell RL, Ikeda DM, O’Shaughnessy KF, and Sickles EA. Published: Radiology 2001; 219: 192-202. PURPOSE: To retrospectively determine (a) the mammographic characteristics of cancers missed at screening mammography (n=286), of which a blinded panel recommended recall for 115 cancers (35 microcalcifications and 80 masses0 , and (b) the ability of computer-aided detection (CAD) to mark the missed cancers. CONCLUSIONS: For calcifications and masses, the most frequently suggested reasons for possible miss were dense breasts (12 of 35; 34%) and distracting lesions (35 of 80; 44%), respectively. CAD marked 30 (86%) of 35 missed calcifications and 58 (73%) of 80 missed masses (overall detection rate 77% (88/115) missed at screening mammography that radiologists retrospectively judged to merit recall.