Takayoshi Uematsu1, Kazuaki Nakashima2, Taiyo Leopoldo Harada2, Hatsuko Nasu3, Tatsuya Igarashi4. 1. Department of Breast Imaging and Breast Intervention Radiology, Shizuoka Cancer Center Hospital, 1007 Shimonagakubo, Nagaizumi, Shizuoka, 411-8777, Japan. t.uematsu@scchr.jp. 2. Department of Breast Imaging and Breast Intervention Radiology, Shizuoka Cancer Center Hospital, 1007 Shimonagakubo, Nagaizumi, Shizuoka, 411-8777, Japan. 3. Department of Radiology, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, Shizuoka, Japan. 4. Department of Radiology, Fujieda Municipal General Hospital, Shizuoka, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether original full-field digital mammograms (DMs) can be replaced with synthesized mammograms in both screening and diagnostic settings. To compare reader performance of artificial intelligence computer-aided detection synthesized mammograms (AI CAD SMs) with that of DM alone or in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) images in an experimental setting. METHODS: We compared the performance of multireader (n = 4) and reading multicase (n = 388), in 84 cancers, 83 biopsy-proven benign lesions, and 221 normal or benign cases with negative results after 1-year follow-up. Each reading was independently interpreted with four reading modes: DM, AI CAD SM, DM + DBT, and AI CAD SM + DBT. The accuracy of probability of malignancy (POM) and five-category ratings were evaluated using areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) in the random-reader analysis. RESULTS: The mean AUC values based on POM for DM, AI CAD SM, DM + DBT, and AI CAD SM + DBT were 0.871, 0.902, 0.895, and 0.909, respectively. The mean AUC of AI CAD SM was significantly higher (P = 0.002) than that of DM. For calcification lesions, the sensitivity of SM and DM did not differ significantly (P = 0.204). The mean AUC for AI CAD SM + DBT was higher than that of DM + DBT (P = 0.082). ROC curves based on the five-category ratings showed similar proximity of the overall performance levels. CONCLUSIONS: AI CAD SM alone was superior to DM alone. Also, AI CAD SM + DBT was superior to DM + DBT but not statistically significant.
BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether original full-field digital mammograms (DMs) can be replaced with synthesized mammograms in both screening and diagnostic settings. To compare reader performance of artificial intelligence computer-aided detection synthesized mammograms (AI CAD SMs) with that of DM alone or in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) images in an experimental setting. METHODS: We compared the performance of multireader (n = 4) and reading multicase (n = 388), in 84 cancers, 83 biopsy-proven benign lesions, and 221 normal or benign cases with negative results after 1-year follow-up. Each reading was independently interpreted with four reading modes: DM, AI CAD SM, DM + DBT, and AI CAD SM + DBT. The accuracy of probability of malignancy (POM) and five-category ratings were evaluated using areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) in the random-reader analysis. RESULTS: The mean AUC values based on POM for DM, AI CAD SM, DM + DBT, and AI CAD SM + DBT were 0.871, 0.902, 0.895, and 0.909, respectively. The mean AUC of AI CAD SM was significantly higher (P = 0.002) than that of DM. For calcification lesions, the sensitivity of SM and DM did not differ significantly (P = 0.204). The mean AUC for AI CAD SM + DBT was higher than that of DM + DBT (P = 0.082). ROC curves based on the five-category ratings showed similar proximity of the overall performance levels. CONCLUSIONS: AI CAD SM alone was superior to DM alone. Also, AI CAD SM + DBT was superior to DM + DBT but not statistically significant.
Authors: Giovanna Mariscotti; Manuela Durando; Nehmat Houssami; Mirella Fasciano; Alberto Tagliafico; Davide Bosco; Cristina Casella; Camilla Bogetti; Laura Bergamasco; Paolo Fonio; Giovanni Gandini Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-08-17 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Margarita L Zuley; Ben Guo; Victor J Catullo; Denise M Chough; Amy E Kelly; Amy H Lu; Grace Y Rathfon; Marion Lee Spangler; Jules H Sumkin; Luisa P Wallace; Andriy I Bandos Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-01-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sylvia H Heywang-Köbrunner; Alexander Jänsch; Astrid Hacker; Sina Weinand; Tobias Vogelmann Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-10-25 Impact factor: 7.034