Literature DB >> 16087091

Multimodality computerized diagnosis of breast lesions using mammography and sonography.

Karen Drukker1, Karla Horsch, Maryellen L Giger.   

Abstract

RATIONALE AND
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to investigate the use of computer-extracted features of lesions imaged by means of two modalities, mammography and breast ultrasound, in the computerized classification of breast lesions.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed computerized analysis on a database of 97 patients with a total of 100 lesions (40 malignant, 40 benign solid, and 20 cystic lesions). Mammograms and ultrasound images were available for these breast lesions. There was an average of three mammographic images and two ultrasound images per lesion. Based on seed points indicated by a radiologist, the computer automatically segmented lesions from the parenchymal background and automatically extracted a set of characteristic features for each lesion. For each feature, its value averaged over all images pertaining to a given lesion was input to a Bayesian neural network for classification. We also investigated different approaches to combine image-based features into this by-lesion analysis. In that analysis, mean, maximum, and minimum feature values were considered for all images representing a lesion. We considered performance by using a leave-one-lesion-out approach, based on image features from mammography alone (two to five features), ultrasound alone (three to four features), and a combination of features from both modalities (three to five features total).
RESULTS: For the classification task of distinguishing cancer from other abnormalities in a lesion-based analysis by using a single modality, areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (A(z) values) increased significantly when the computer selected the manner (mean, minimum, or maximum) in which image-based features were combined into lesion-based features. The highest performance was found for lesion-based analysis and automated feature selection from mean, maximum, and minimum values of features from both modalities (resulting in a total of four features being used). That A(z) value for the task of distinguishing cancer was 0.92, showing a statistically significant increase over that achieved with features from either mammography or ultrasound alone.
CONCLUSION: Computerized classification of cancer significantly improved when lesion features from both modalities were combined. Classification performance depended on specific methods for combining features from multiple images per lesion. These results are encouraging and warrant further exploration of computerized methods for multimodality imaging.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16087091     DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2005.04.014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Radiol        ISSN: 1076-6332            Impact factor:   3.173


  10 in total

1.  Computer-aided classification of breast masses: performance and interobserver variability of expert radiologists versus residents.

Authors:  Swatee Singh; Jeff Maxwell; Jay A Baker; Jennifer L Nicholas; Joseph Y Lo
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-10-22       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Exploring nonlinear feature space dimension reduction and data representation in breast Cadx with Laplacian eigenmaps and t-SNE.

Authors:  Andrew R Jamieson; Maryellen L Giger; Karen Drukker; Hui Li; Yading Yuan; Neha Bhooshan
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Enhancement of breast CADx with unlabeled data.

Authors:  Andrew R Jamieson; Maryellen L Giger; Karen Drukker; Lorenzo L Pesce
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 4.  Anniversary paper: History and status of CAD and quantitative image analysis: the role of Medical Physics and AAPM.

Authors:  Maryellen L Giger; Heang-Ping Chan; John Boone
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Multimodality computer-aided breast cancer diagnosis with FFDM and DCE-MRI.

Authors:  Yading Yuan; Maryellen L Giger; Hui Li; Neha Bhooshan; Charlene A Sennett
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 3.173

6.  Quantitative ultrasound image analysis of axillary lymph node status in breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Karen Drukker; Maryellen Giger; Lina Arbash Meinel; Adam Starkey; Jyothi Janardanan; Hiroyuki Abe
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2013-03-24       Impact factor: 2.924

7.  Multimodality GPU-based computer-assisted diagnosis of breast cancer using ultrasound and digital mammography images.

Authors:  Konstantinos P Sidiropoulos; Spiros A Kostopoulos; Dimitris T Glotsos; Emmanouil I Athanasiadis; Nikos D Dimitropoulos; John T Stonham; Dionisis A Cavouras
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2013-01-25       Impact factor: 2.924

8.  Breast US computer-aided diagnosis workstation: performance with a large clinical diagnostic population.

Authors:  Karen Drukker; Nicholas P Gruszauskas; Charlene A Sennett; Maryellen L Giger
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-06-23       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 9.  Advances in computer-aided diagnosis for breast cancer.

Authors:  Lubomir Hadjiiski; Berkman Sahiner; Heang-Ping Chan
Journal:  Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 1.927

10.  Multi-modality CADx: ROC study of the effect on radiologists' accuracy in characterizing breast masses on mammograms and 3D ultrasound images.

Authors:  Berkman Sahiner; Heang-Ping Chan; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Chintana Paramagul; Janet E Bailey; Alexis V Nees; Caroline E Blane; Dorit D Adler; Stephanie K Patterson; Katherine A Klein; Renee W Pinsky; Mark A Helvie
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2009-04-17       Impact factor: 3.173

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.