2006 Single Reading with Computer-aided Detection and Double Reading of Screening Mammograms in the United Kingdom National Breast Screening Program. Authors: Gilbert FJ, Astley SM, McGee MA et al. Published: Radiology 2006; 241; 47-53. OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively determine if the use of a computer-aided detection (CAD) system can improve the performance of single reading of screening mammograms to match that of double reading in the United Kingdom. RESULTS: Single reading with CAD led to a cancer detection rate that was significantly (P = .02) higher than that achieved with double reading: 6.5% more cancers were detected by means of single reading with CAD than by means of double reading. However, the recall rate was higher for single reading with CAD than for double reading (8.6% vs 6.5%, respectively; P _ .001). CONCLUSION: Single reading with CAD leads to an improved cancer detection rate and an increased recall rate than double reading.   Screening Mammograms: Interpretation with Computer-aided Detection – Prospective Evaluation Authors: Morton MJ, DH Whaley, KR Brandt et al. Published: Radiology 2006; 239: 375-383. OBJECTIVE: A prospective clinical study of 21,349 screening mammograms to determine the effect of a commercially available computer-aided detection (CAD) system on interpretations of screening mammograms. CONCLUSION: There was a 7.62% increase in the number of breast cancers detected, with an acceptable increase in the recall rate (8.7%) and a minimal increase in the number of biopsies with benign results.   Computer-aided Detection in Digital Mammography: Comparison of Craniocaudal, Mediolateral Oblique and Mediolateral Views Authors: Kim SJ, Moon WK, Cho, N, et al Published: Radiology 2006; 241 695-701. PURPOSE: To retrospectively compare the sensitivity of a computer-aided detection (CAD) system for depicting breast cancer in three digital mammographic views (CC, MLO, ML). RESULTS: CAD sensitivity was 96% (80/83) in the CC plus MLO views and 99% (82 of 83) with all three views. For masses, CAD sensitivity was 76% (45/59) in the CC view and 75% (44/59) in the MLOview and increased to 93% (55/59) when MLO and CC views were combined (P< .001). For microcalcifications, sensitivity was 98% (40/41) in the CC view and 95% (39/41) in the MLO view, and this increased to 100% (41/41) when the MLO and CC views were combined (P = .31).