Literature DB >> 17562812

Breast mass lesions: computer-aided diagnosis models with mammographic and sonographic descriptors.

Jonathan L Jesneck1, Joseph Y Lo, Jay A Baker.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To retrospectively develop and evaluate computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) models that include both mammographic and sonographic descriptors.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval was obtained for this HIPAA-compliant study. A waiver of informed consent was obtained. Mammographic and sonographic examinations were performed in 737 patients (age range, 17-87 years), which yielded 803 breast mass lesions (296 malignant, 507 benign). Radiologist-interpreted features from mammograms and sonograms were used as input features for linear discriminant analysis (LDA) and artificial neural network (ANN) models to differentiate benign from malignant lesions. An LDA with all the features was compared with an LDA with only stepwise-selected features. Classification performances were quantified by using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and were evaluated in a train, validate, and retest scheme. On the retest set, both LDAs were compared with radiologist assessment score of malignancy.
RESULTS: Both the LDA and ANN achieved high classification performance with cross validation (area under the ROC curve [A(z)] = 0.92 +/- 0.01 [standard deviation] and (0.90)A(z) = 0.54 +/- 0.08 for LDA, A(z) = 0.92 +/- 0.01 and (0.90)A(z) = 0.55 +/- 0.08 for ANN). Results of both models generalized well to the retest set, with no significant performance differences between the validate and retest sets (P > .1). On the retest set, there were no significant performance differences between LDA with all features and LDA with only the stepwise-selected features (P > .3) and between either LDA and radiologist assessment score (P > .2).
CONCLUSION: Results showed that combining mammographic and sonographic descriptors in a CAD model can result in high classification and generalization performance. On the retest set, LDA performance matched radiologist classification performance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17562812     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2442060712

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


  24 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.  Training neural network classifiers for medical decision making: the effects of imbalanced datasets on classification performance.

Authors:  Maciej A Mazurowski; Piotr A Habas; Jacek M Zurada; Joseph Y Lo; Jay A Baker; Georgia D Tourassi
Journal:  Neural Netw       Date:  2007-12-27

3.  [Experts versus beginners, 1:1? : Can CAD achieve the equalizer in the classification of breast lesions?].

Authors:  M Simon; S Kapsimalakou
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 0.635

Review 4.  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

5.  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

6.  Using multidimensional mutual information to prioritize mammographic features for breast cancer diagnosis.

Authors:  Y Wu; D J Vanness; E S Burnside
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2013-11-16

7.  A study of computer-aided diagnosis for pulmonary nodule: comparison between classification accuracies using calculated image features and imaging findings annotated by radiologists.

Authors:  Masami Kawagishi; Bin Chen; Daisuke Furukawa; Hiroyuki Sekiguchi; Koji Sakai; Takeshi Kubo; Masahiro Yakami; Koji Fujimoto; Ryo Sakamoto; Yutaka Emoto; Gakuto Aoyama; Yoshio Iizuka; Keita Nakagomi; Hiroyuki Yamamoto; Kaori Togashi
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2017-03-11       Impact factor: 2.924

8.  Segmentation of breast ultrasound images based on active contours using neutrosophic theory.

Authors:  Mahsa Lotfollahi; Masoumeh Gity; Jing Yong Ye; A Mahlooji Far
Journal:  J Med Ultrason (2001)       Date:  2017-08-18       Impact factor: 1.314

9.  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.  Automated 3D ultrasound image segmentation to aid breast cancer image interpretation.

Authors:  Peng Gu; Won-Mean Lee; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Jie Yuan; Xueding Wang; Paul L Carson
Journal:  Ultrasonics       Date:  2015-10-31       Impact factor: 2.890

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.