Literature DB >> 17502255

Computer-aided detection systems for breast masses: comparison of performances on full-field digital mammograms and digitized screen-film mammograms.

Jun Wei1, Lubomir M Hadjiiski, Berkman Sahiner, Heang-Ping Chan, Jun Ge, Marilyn A Roubidoux, Mark A Helvie, Chuan Zhou, Yi-Ta Wu, Chintana Paramagul, Yiheng Zhang.   

Abstract

RATIONALE AND
OBJECTIVES: To compare the performance of computer aided detection (CAD) systems on pairs of full-field digital mammogram (FFDM) and screen-film mammogram (SFM) obtained from the same patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our CAD systems on both modalities have similar architectures that consist of five steps. For FFDMs, the input raw image is first log-transformed and enhanced by a multiresolution preprocessing scheme. For digitized SFMs, the input image is smoothed and subsampled to a pixel size of 100 microm x 100 microm. For both CAD systems, the mammogram after preprocessing undergoes a gradient field analysis followed by clustering-based region growing to identify suspicious breast structures. Each of these structures is refined in a local segmentation process. Morphologic and texture features are then extracted from each detected structure, and trained rule-based and linear discriminant analysis classifiers are used to differentiate masses from normal tissues. Two datasets, one with masses and the other without masses, were collected. The mass dataset contained 131 cases with 131 biopsy proven masses, of which 27 were malignant and 104 benign. The true locations of the masses were identified by an experienced Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA) radiologist. The no-mass data set contained 98 cases. The time interval between the FFDM and the corresponding SFM was 0 to 118 days.
RESULTS: Our CAD system achieved case-based sensitivities of 70%, 80%, and 90% at 0.9, 1.5, and 2.6 false positive (FP) marks/image, respectively, on FFDMs, and the same sensitivities at 1.0, 1.4, and 2.6 FP marks/image, respectively, on SFMs.
CONCLUSIONS: The difference in the performances of our FFDM and SFM CAD systems did not achieve statistical significance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17502255      PMCID: PMC2040166          DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2007.02.017

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


  31 in total

1.  Combined adaptive enhancement and region-growing segmentation of breast masses on digitized mammograms.

Authors:  N Petrick; H P Chan; B Sahiner; M A Helvie
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Computer-aided detection of breast masses on full field digital mammograms.

Authors:  Jun Wei; Berkman Sahiner; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Heang-Ping Chan; Nicholas Petrick; Mark A Helvie; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Jun Ge; Chuan Zhou
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Maximum likelihood estimation of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves from continuously-distributed data.

Authors:  C E Metz; B A Herman; J H Shen
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1998-05-15       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  False-positive reduction technique for detection of masses on digital mammograms: global and local multiresolution texture analysis.

Authors:  D Wei; H P Chan; N Petrick; B Sahiner; M A Helvie; D D Adler; M M Goodsitt
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Effect of human variability on independent double reading in screening mammography.

Authors:  C A Beam; D C Sullivan; P M Layde
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 6.  Unified measurement of observer performance in detecting and localizing target objects on images.

Authors:  R G Swensson
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-09-16       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Impact of breast density on computer-aided detection for breast cancer.

Authors:  Rachel F Brem; Jeffrey W Hoffmeister; Jocelyn A Rapelyea; Gilat Zisman; Kevin Mohtashemi; Guarav Jindal; Martin P Disimio; Steven K Rogers
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--observer performance study.

Authors:  Per Skaane; Corinne Balleyguier; Felix Diekmann; Susanne Diekmann; Jean-Charles Piguet; Kari Young; Loren T Niklason
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-08-11       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer.

Authors:  John M Lewin; Carl J D'Orsi; R Edward Hendrick; Lawrence J Moss; Pamela K Isaacs; Andrew Karellas; Gary R Cutter
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 3.959

View more
  8 in total

1.  Comparing areas under receiver operating characteristic curves: potential impact of the "Last" experimentally measured operating point.

Authors:  David Gur; Andriy I Bandos; Howard E Rockette
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-02-07       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 2.  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

3.  Computer-aided detection of masses in digital tomosynthesis mammography: comparison of three approaches.

Authors:  Heang-Ping Chan; Jun Wei; Yiheng Zhang; Mark A Helvie; Richard H Moore; Berkman Sahiner; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Daniel B Kopans
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Computer-aided detection of breast masses on mammograms: dual system approach with two-view analysis.

Authors:  Jun Wei; Heang-Ping Chan; Berkman Sahiner; Chuan Zhou; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Mark A Helvie
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Mass detection in digital breast tomosynthesis: Deep convolutional neural network with transfer learning from mammography.

Authors:  Ravi K Samala; Heang-Ping Chan; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Mark A Helvie; Jun Wei; Kenny Cha
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Machine Learning for the Prediction of Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: A Post Hoc Pilot Study of 28 Participants.

Authors:  Benjamin S Hopkins; Kenneth A Weber; Kartik Kesavabhotla; Monica Paliwal; Donald R Cantrell; Zachary A Smith
Journal:  World Neurosurg       Date:  2019-03-25       Impact factor: 2.104

7.  Computer-aided detection of breast masses depicted on full-field digital mammograms: a performance assessment.

Authors:  B Zheng; J H Sumkin; M L Zuley; D Lederman; X Wang; D Gur
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-02-22       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Evaluation of computer-aided diagnosis on a large clinical full-field digital mammographic dataset.

Authors:  Hui Li; Maryellen L Giger; Yading Yuan; Weijie Chen; Karla Horsch; Li Lan; Andrew R Jamieson; Charlene A Sennett; Sanaz A Jansen
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 3.173

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.