Eun Young Chae1, Hak Hee Kim2, Ji-Wook Jeong3, Seung-Hoon Chae3, Sooyeul Lee3, Young-Wook Choi4. 1. Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88, Olympic-ro 43-Gil, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, 05505, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88, Olympic-ro 43-Gil, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, 05505, Republic of Korea. hhkim@amc.seoul.kr. 3. Medical Imaging Research Section, Electronics & Telecommunications Research Institute, 218 Gajeongno, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 34129, Republic of Korea. 4. Advanced Medical Device Research Division, Korea Electrotechnology Research Institute, 111 Hanggaul-ro, Sangnok-gu, Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-do, 15588, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic performance and interpretation time of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) for both novice and experienced readers with and without using a computer-aided detection (CAD) system for concurrent read. METHODS: CAD system was developed for concurrent read in DBT interpretation. In this observer performance study, we used an enriched sample of 100 DBT cases including 70 with and 30 without breast cancers. Image interpretation was performed by four radiologists with different experience levels (two experienced and two novice). Each reader completed two reading sessions (at a minimum 2-month interval), once with and once without CAD. Three different rating scales were used to record each reader's interpretation. Reader performance with and without CAD was reported and compared for each radiologist. Reading time for each case was also recorded. RESULTS: Average area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values for BI-RADS scale on using CAD were 0.778 and 0.776 without using CAD, demonstrating no statistically significant differences. Results were consistent when the probability of malignancy and percentage probability of malignancy scales were used. Reading times per case were 72.07 s and 62.03 s (SD, 37.54 s vs 34.38 s) without and with CAD, respectively. The average difference in reading time on using CAD was a statistically significant decrease of 10.04 ± 1.85 s, providing 14% decrease in time. The time-reducing effect was consistently observed in both novice and experienced readers. CONCLUSION: DBT combined with CAD reduced interpretation time without diagnostic performance loss to novice and experienced readers. KEY POINTS: • The use of a concurrent DBT-CAD system shortened interpretation time. • The shortened interpretation time with DBT-CAD did not come at a cost to diagnostic performance to novice or experienced readers. • The concurrent DBT-CAD system improved the efficiency of DBT interpretation.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic performance and interpretation time of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) for both novice and experienced readers with and without using a computer-aided detection (CAD) system for concurrent read. METHODS:CAD system was developed for concurrent read in DBT interpretation. In this observer performance study, we used an enriched sample of 100 DBT cases including 70 with and 30 without breast cancers. Image interpretation was performed by four radiologists with different experience levels (two experienced and two novice). Each reader completed two reading sessions (at a minimum 2-month interval), once with and once without CAD. Three different rating scales were used to record each reader's interpretation. Reader performance with and without CAD was reported and compared for each radiologist. Reading time for each case was also recorded. RESULTS: Average area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values for BI-RADS scale on using CAD were 0.778 and 0.776 without using CAD, demonstrating no statistically significant differences. Results were consistent when the probability of malignancy and percentage probability of malignancy scales were used. Reading times per case were 72.07 s and 62.03 s (SD, 37.54 s vs 34.38 s) without and with CAD, respectively. The average difference in reading time on using CAD was a statistically significant decrease of 10.04 ± 1.85 s, providing 14% decrease in time. The time-reducing effect was consistently observed in both novice and experienced readers. CONCLUSION: DBT combined with CAD reduced interpretation time without diagnostic performance loss to novice and experienced readers. KEY POINTS: • The use of a concurrent DBT-CAD system shortened interpretation time. • The shortened interpretation time with DBT-CAD did not come at a cost to diagnostic performance to novice or experienced readers. • The concurrent DBT-CAD system improved the efficiency of DBT interpretation.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Computer-assisted diagnosis; Digital breast tomosynthesis
Authors: Elizabeth A Rafferty; Jeong Mi Park; Liane E Philpotts; Steven P Poplack; Jules H Sumkin; Elkan F Halpern; Loren T Niklason Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-11-20 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Anne Marie McCarthy; Despina Kontos; Marie Synnestvedt; Kay See Tan; Daniel F Heitjan; Mitchell Schnall; Emily F Conant Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-10-13 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Richard A Benedikt; Justin E Boatsman; Cynthia A Swann; Aaron D Kirkpatrick; Alicia Y Toledano Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2017-10-24 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Per Skaane; Andriy I Bandos; Randi Gullien; Ellen B Eben; Ulrika Ekseth; Unni Haakenaasen; Mina Izadi; Ingvild N Jebsen; Gunnar Jahr; Mona Krager; Solveig Hofvind Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-04-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Emily F Conant; Alicia Y Toledano; Senthil Periaswamy; Sergei V Fotin; Jonathan Go; Justin E Boatsman; Jeffrey W Hoffmeister Journal: Radiol Artif Intell Date: 2019-07-31
Authors: Suzanne L van Winkel; Alejandro Rodríguez-Ruiz; Linda Appelman; Albert Gubern-Mérida; Nico Karssemeijer; Jonas Teuwen; Alexander J T Wanders; Ioannis Sechopoulos; Ritse M Mann Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 5.315