Literature DB >> 34422594

Improved Inception V3 method and its effect on radiologists' performance of tumor classification with automated breast ultrasound system.

Panpan Zhang1, Zhaosheng Ma1, Yingtao Zhang2, Xiaodan Chen2, Gang Wang1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The automated breast ultrasound system (ABUS) is recognized as a valuable detection tool in addition to mammography. The purpose of this study was to propose a novel computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) system by extracting the textural features from ABUS images and to investigate the efficiency of using this CAD for breast cancer detection.
METHODS: This retrospective study involved 149 breast nodules [maximum diameter: mean size 18.89 mm, standard deviation (SD) 10.238, and range 5-59 mm] in 135. We assigned 3 novice readers (<3 years of experience and 3 experienced readers (≥10 years of experience to review the imaging data and stratify the 149 breast nodules as either malignant or benign. The Improved Inception V3 (II3) method was developed and used as an assistant tool to help the 6 readers to re-interpret the images.
RESULTS: Our method (II3) achieved an accuracy of 88.6% for the final result. The 3 novice readers had an average accuracy of 71.37%±4.067% while the 3 experienced readers was 83.03%±3.371% on the first-reading. With the help of II3 on the second-reading, the average accuracy of the novice readers increased to 84.13%±1.662% and the experienced readers increased to 89.50%±0.346%.The areas under the curve (AUCs) were similar compared with linear algorithms. The mean AUC of the novice readers was improved from 0.7751 (without II3) to 0.8232 (with II3). The mean AUC of the experienced readers was improved from 0.8939 (without II3) to 0.9211 (with II3). The mean AUC for all readers improved in both the second-reading mode (from 0.8345 to 0.8722, P=0.0081<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: With the help of the II3, the diagnostic accuracy of the two groups were both improved, and II3 was more helpful for novice readers than for experienced readers. Our results showed that II3 is valuable in the differentiation of benign and malignant breast nodules and it also improves the experience and skill of some novice radiologists. The II3 cannot completely replace the influence of experience in the diagnostic process and will retain an auxiliary role in the clinic at present. 2021 Gland Surgery. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Computer-aided diagnosis (CAD); Improved Inception V3 (II3); automated breast ultrasound; breast cancer

Year:  2021        PMID: 34422594      PMCID: PMC8340346          DOI: 10.21037/gs-21-328

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gland Surg        ISSN: 2227-684X


  23 in total

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

Authors:  Berkman Sahiner; Heang-Ping Chan; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Mark A Helvie; Chintana Paramagul; Janet Bailey; Alexis V Nees; Caroline Blane
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-01-23       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Computer-aided detection of cancer in automated 3-D breast ultrasound.

Authors:  Tao Tan; Bram Platel; Roel Mus; László Tabar; Ritse M Mann; Nico Karssemeijer
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2013-05-16       Impact factor: 10.048

3.  Performance and Reading Time of Automated Breast US with or without Computer-aided Detection.

Authors:  Shanling Yang; Xican Gao; Liwen Liu; Rui Shu; Jingru Yan; Ge Zhang; Yao Xiao; Yan Ju; Ni Zhao; Hongping Song
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-06-18       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 4.  Automated whole breast ultrasound.

Authors:  Stuart S Kaplan
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 2.303

5.  Computer-aided detection (CAD) in mammography: does it help the junior or the senior radiologist?

Authors:  Corinne Balleyguier; Karen Kinkel; Jacques Fermanian; Sebastien Malan; Germaine Djen; Patrice Taourel; Olivier Helenon
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 3.528

6.  Segmentation of breast ultrasound image with semantic classification of superpixels.

Authors:  Qinghua Huang; Yonghao Huang; Yaozhong Luo; Feiniu Yuan; Xuelong Li
Journal:  Med Image Anal       Date:  2020-01-25       Impact factor: 8.545

Review 7.  Computed-aided diagnosis (CAD) in the detection of breast cancer.

Authors:  C Dromain; B Boyer; R Ferré; S Canale; S Delaloge; C Balleyguier
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2012-08-30       Impact factor: 3.528

8.  Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers.

Authors:  M T Mandelson; N Oestreicher; P L Porter; D White; C A Finder; S H Taplin; E White
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2000-07-05       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries.

Authors:  Hyuna Sung; Jacques Ferlay; Rebecca L Siegel; Mathieu Laversanne; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Ahmedin Jemal; Freddie Bray
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2021-02-04       Impact factor: 508.702

10.  Breast cancer staging: Combined digital breast tomosynthesis and automated breast ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Rossano Girometti; Ludmila Tomkova; Lorenzo Cereser; Chiara Zuiani
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2018-09-05       Impact factor: 3.528

View more
  2 in total

1.  A Novel Deep Learning Model to Distinguish Malignant Versus Benign Solid Lung Nodules.

Authors:  Shuwen Wang; Leilei Zhou; Xiaoran Li; Jie Tang; Jing Wu; Xindao Yin; Yu-Chen Chen; Lingquan Lu
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2022-07-29

2.  Evaluation of a new method of calculating breast tumor volume based on automated breast ultrasound.

Authors:  Jing-Jing Ma; Shan Meng; Sha-Jie Dang; Jia-Zhong Wang; Quan Yuan; Qi Yang; Can-Xu Song
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-09-13       Impact factor: 5.738

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.