Literature DB >> 17244717

Malignant and benign breast masses on 3D US volumetric images: effect of computer-aided diagnosis on radiologist accuracy.

Berkman Sahiner1, Heang-Ping Chan, Marilyn A Roubidoux, Lubomir M Hadjiiski, Mark A Helvie, Chintana Paramagul, Janet Bailey, Alexis V Nees, Caroline Blane.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To retrospectively investigate the effect of using a custom-designed computer classifier on radiologists' sensitivity and specificity for discriminating malignant masses from benign masses on three-dimensional (3D) volumetric ultrasonographic (US) images, with histologic analysis serving as the reference standard.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Informed consent and institutional review board approval were obtained. Our data set contained 3D US volumetric images obtained in 101 women (average age, 51 years; age range, 25-86 years) with 101 biopsy-proved breast masses (45 benign, 56 malignant). A computer algorithm was designed to automatically delineate mass boundaries and extract features on the basis of segmented mass shapes and margins. A computer classifier was used to merge features into a malignancy score. Five experienced radiologists participated as readers. Each radiologist read cases first without computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) and immediately thereafter with CAD. Observers' malignancy rating data were analyzed with the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.
RESULTS: Without CAD, the five radiologists had an average area under the ROC curve (A(z)) of 0.83 (range, 0.81-0.87). With CAD, the average A(z) increased significantly (P = .006) to 0.90 (range, 0.86-0.93). When a 2% likelihood of malignancy was used as the threshold for biopsy recommendation, the average sensitivity of radiologists increased from 96% to 98% with CAD, while the average specificity for this data set decreased from 22% to 19%. If a biopsy recommendation threshold could be chosen such that sensitivity would be maintained at 96%, specificity would increase to 45% with CAD.
CONCLUSION: Use of a computer algorithm may improve radiologists' accuracy in distinguishing malignant from benign breast masses on 3D US volumetric images. (c) RSNA, 2007.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17244717      PMCID: PMC2800986          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2423051464

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  25 in total

1.  Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method.

Authors:  D D Dorfman; K S Berbaum; C E Metz
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 6.016

2.  The positive predictive value of mammography.

Authors:  D B Kopans
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Improvement in radiologists' characterization of malignant and benign breast masses on serial mammograms with computer-aided diagnosis: an ROC study.

Authors:  Lubomir Hadjiiski; Heang-Ping Chan; Berkman Sahiner; Mark A Helvie; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Caroline Blane; Chintana Paramagul; Nicholas Petrick; Janet Bailey; Katherine Klein; Michelle Foster; Stephanie Patterson; Dorit Adler; Alexis Nees; Joseph Shen
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-08-18       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 4.  Mammographic biopsy recommendations.

Authors:  D D Adler; M A Helvie
Journal:  Curr Opin Radiol       Date:  1992-10

Review 5.  The role of US in breast imaging.

Authors:  V P Jackson
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1990-11       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 6.  ROC methodology in radiologic imaging.

Authors:  C E Metz
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1986-09       Impact factor: 6.016

7.  Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions.

Authors:  A T Stavros; D Thickman; C L Rapp; M A Dennis; S H Parker; G A Sisney
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Improving the distinction between benign and malignant breast lesions: the value of sonographic texture analysis.

Authors:  B S Garra; B H Krasner; S C Horii; S Ascher; S K Mun; R K Zeman
Journal:  Ultrason Imaging       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 1.578

9.  Nonpalpable, circumscribed, noncalcified solid breast masses: likelihood of malignancy based on lesion size and age of patient.

Authors:  E A Sickles
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1994-08       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Performance of computer-aided diagnosis in the interpretation of lesions on breast sonography.

Authors:  Karla Horsch; Maryellen L Giger; Carl J Vyborny; Luz A Venta
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 3.173

View more
  22 in total

1.  Computer-aided diagnosis for contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the liver.

Authors:  Katsutoshi Sugimoto; Junji Shiraishi; Fuminori Moriyasu; Kunio Doi
Journal:  World J Radiol       Date:  2010-06-28

2.  Incorporating texture features in a computer-aided breast lesion diagnosis system for automated three-dimensional breast ultrasound.

Authors:  Haixia Liu; Tao Tan; Jan van Zelst; Ritse Mann; Nico Karssemeijer; Bram Platel
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2014-07-25

3.  Comparison between different imaging techniques in the evaluation of malignant breast lesions: can 3D ultrasound be useful?

Authors:  Paola Clauser; Viviana Londero; Giuseppe Como; Rossano Girometti; Massimo Bazzocchi; Chiara Zuiani
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2013-12-03       Impact factor: 3.469

4.  A new automated method for the segmentation and characterization of breast masses on ultrasound images.

Authors:  Jing Cui; Berkman Sahiner; Heang-Ping Chan; Alexis Nees; Chintana Paramagul; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Chuan Zhou; Jiazheng Shi
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Novel computer-aided diagnosis algorithms on ultrasound image: effects on solid breast masses discrimination.

Authors:  Ying Wang; Hong Wang; Yanhui Guo; Chunping Ning; Bo Liu; H D Cheng; Jiawei Tian
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2009-11-10       Impact factor: 4.056

Review 6.  Breast ultrasound image segmentation: a survey.

Authors:  Qinghua Huang; Yaozhong Luo; Qiangzhi Zhang
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2017-01-09       Impact factor: 2.924

7.  Quantitative ultrasound analysis for classification of BI-RADS category 3 breast masses.

Authors:  Woo Kyung Moon; Chung-Ming Lo; Jung Min Chang; Chiun-Sheng Huang; Jeon-Hor Chen; Ruey-Feng Chang
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 4.056

Review 8.  Ultrasound Imaging Technologies for Breast Cancer Detection and Management: A Review.

Authors:  Rongrong Guo; Guolan Lu; Binjie Qin; Baowei Fei
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2017-10-26       Impact factor: 2.998

9.  Computer-aided diagnosis improves detection of small intracranial aneurysms on MRA in a clinical setting.

Authors:  I L Štepán-Buksakowska; J M Accurso; F E Diehn; J Huston; T J Kaufmann; P H Luetmer; C P Wood; X Yang; D J Blezek; R Carter; C Hagen; D Hořínek; A Hejčl; M Roček; B J Erickson
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2014-06-12       Impact factor: 3.825

10.  The diagnostic performance of leak-plugging automated segmentation versus manual tracing of breast lesions on ultrasound images.

Authors:  Hui Xiong; Laith R Sultan; Theodore W Cary; Susan M Schultz; Ghizlane Bouzghar; Chandra M Sehgal
Journal:  Ultrasound       Date:  2017-01-25
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.