Literature DB >> 20971779

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

Swatee Singh1, Jeff Maxwell, Jay A Baker, Jennifer L Nicholas, Joseph Y Lo.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the interobserver variability in descriptions of breast masses by dedicated breast imagers and radiology residents and determine how any differences in lesion description affect the performance of a computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) computer classification system.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval was obtained for this HIPAA-compliant study, and the requirement to obtain informed consent was waived. Images of 50 breast lesions were individually interpreted by seven dedicated breast imagers and 10 radiology residents, yielding 850 lesion interpretations. Lesions were described with use of 11 descriptors from the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, and interobserver variability was calculated with the Cohen κ statistic. Those 11 features were selected, along with patient age, and merged together by a linear discriminant analysis (LDA) classification model trained by using 1005 previously existing cases. Variability in the recommendations of the computer model for different observers was also calculated with the Cohen κ statistic.
RESULTS: A significant difference was observed for six lesion features, and radiology residents had greater interobserver variability in their selection of five of the six features than did dedicated breast imagers. The LDA model accurately classified lesions for both sets of observers (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.94 for residents and 0.96 for dedicated imagers). Sensitivity was maintained at 100% for residents and improved from 98% to 100% for dedicated breast imagers. For residents, the computer model could potentially improve the specificity from 20% to 40% (P < .01) and the κ value from 0.09 to 0.53 (P < .001). For dedicated breast imagers, the computer model could increase the specificity from 34% to 43% (P = .16) and the κ value from 0.21 to 0.61 (P < .001).
CONCLUSION: Among findings showing a significant difference, there was greater interobserver variability in lesion descriptions among residents; however, an LDA model using data from either dedicated breast imagers or residents yielded a consistently high performance in the differentiation of benign from malignant breast lesions, demonstrating potential for improving specificity and decreasing interobserver variability in biopsy recommendations. © RSNA, 2010

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20971779      PMCID: PMC3009385          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10081308

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


  59 in total

1.  Variation in false-positive rates of mammography reading among 1067 radiologists: a population-based assessment.

Authors:  Alai Tan; Daniel H Freeman; James S Goodwin; Jean L Freeman
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2006-07-04       Impact factor: 4.872

2.  Breast cancer CADx based on BI-RAds descriptors from two mammographic views.

Authors:  Shalini Gupta; Priscilla F Chyn; Mia K Markey
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Characterization of mammographic masses based on level set segmentation with new image features and patient information.

Authors:  Jiazheng Shi; Berkman Sahiner; Heang-Ping Chan; Jun Ge; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Mark A Helvie; Alexis Nees; Yi-Ta Wu; Jun Wei; Chuan Zhou; Yiheng Zhang; Jing Cui
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 4.071

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

Authors:  Jonathan L Jesneck; Joseph Y Lo; Jay A Baker
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-06-11       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Potential effect of different radiologist reporting methods on studies showing benefit of CAD.

Authors:  Karla Horsch; Maryellen L Giger; Charles E Metz
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 3.173

6.  Improving breast cancer diagnosis with computer-aided diagnosis.

Authors:  Y Jiang; R M Nishikawa; R A Schmidt; C E Metz; M L Giger; K Doi
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 3.173

7.  Automated computerized classification of malignant and benign masses on digitized mammograms.

Authors:  Z Huo; M L Giger; C J Vyborny; D E Wolverton; R A Schmidt; K Doi
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 3.173

8.  Breast masses: computer-aided diagnosis with serial mammograms.

Authors:  Lubomir Hadjiiski; Berkman Sahiner; Mark A Helvie; Heang-Ping Chan; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Chintana Paramagul; Caroline Blane; Nicholas Petrick; Janet Bailey; Katherine Klein; Michelle Foster; Stephanie K Patterson; Dorit Adler; Alexis V Nees; Joseph Shen
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2006-06-26       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations.

Authors:  J G Elmore; M B Barton; V M Moceri; S Polk; P J Arena; S W Fletcher
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1998-04-16       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 10.  Computerized analysis of images in the detection and diagnosis of breast cancer.

Authors:  Maryellen L Giger
Journal:  Semin Ultrasound CT MR       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 1.875

View more
  15 in total

1.  Automated Classification of Rheumatoid Arthritis, Osteoarthritis, and Normal Hand Radiographs with Deep Learning Methods.

Authors:  Kemal Üreten; Hadi Hakan Maraş
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2022-01-11       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  Inter-observer Variability Analysis of Automatic Lung Delineation in Normal and Disease Patients.

Authors:  Luca Saba; Joel C M Than; Norliza M Noor; Omar M Rijal; Rosminah M Kassim; Ashari Yunus; Chue R Ng; Jasjit S Suri
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2016-04-25       Impact factor: 4.460

3.  Quantitative diagnosis of rotator cuff tears based on sonographic pattern recognition.

Authors:  Ruey-Feng Chang; Chung-Chien Lee; Chung-Ming Lo
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-02-28       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Effect of a Deep Learning Framework-Based Computer-Aided Diagnosis System on the Diagnostic Performance of Radiologists in Differentiating between Malignant and Benign Masses on Breast Ultrasonography.

Authors:  Ji Soo Choi; Boo Kyung Han; Eun Sook Ko; Jung Min Bae; Eun Young Ko; So Hee Song; Mi Ri Kwon; Jung Hee Shin; Soo Yeon Hahn
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 3.500

5.  A computer-aided diagnosis system using artificial intelligence for the diagnosis and characterization of breast masses on ultrasound: Added value for the inexperienced breast radiologist.

Authors:  Hee Jeong Park; Sun Mi Kim; Bo La Yun; Mijung Jang; Bohyoung Kim; Ja Yoon Jang; Jong Yoon Lee; Soo Hyun Lee
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 1.817

6.  Computer-aided classification of lung nodules on computed tomography images via deep learning technique.

Authors:  Kai-Lung Hua; Che-Hao Hsu; Shintami Chusnul Hidayati; Wen-Huang Cheng; Yu-Jen Chen
Journal:  Onco Targets Ther       Date:  2015-08-04       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Who could benefit the most from using a computer-aided detection system in full-field digital mammography?

Authors:  Na Young Jung; Bong Joo Kang; Hyeon Sook Kim; Eun Suk Cha; Jae Hee Lee; Chang Suk Park; In Young Whang; Sung Hun Kim; Yeong Yi An; Jae Jeong Choi
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2014-05-29       Impact factor: 2.754

8.  Computer-Aided Diagnosis with Deep Learning Architecture: Applications to Breast Lesions in US Images and Pulmonary Nodules in CT Scans.

Authors:  Jie-Zhi Cheng; Dong Ni; Yi-Hong Chou; Jing Qin; Chui-Mei Tiu; Yeun-Chung Chang; Chiun-Sheng Huang; Dinggang Shen; Chung-Ming Chen
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-04-15       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Radiomics of US texture features in differential diagnosis between triple-negative breast cancer and fibroadenoma.

Authors:  Si Eun Lee; Kyunghwa Han; Jin Young Kwak; Eunjung Lee; Eun-Kyung Kim
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-09-10       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Retrospective comparison of approaches to evaluating inter-observer variability in CT tumour measurements in an academic health centre.

Authors:  MinJae Woo; Moonseong Heo; A Michael Devane; Steven C Lowe; Ronald W Gimbel
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-11-14       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.