Multi-modality CADx. ROC Study of the Effect on Radiologists' Accuracy in Characterizing Breast Masses on Mammograms and 3D Ultrasound Images

Academic Radiology

Volumn 16, Issue 7, 2009, Pages 810-818

  Sahiner, Berkman ^a   Chan, Heang Ping ^a   Hadjiiski, Lubomir M ^a   Roubidoux, Marilyn A ^a   Paramagul, Chintana ^a   Bailey, Janet E ^a   Nees, Alexis V ^a   Blane, Caroline E ^a   Adler, Dorit D ^a   Patterson, Stephanie K ^a   Klein, Katherine A ^a   Pinsky, Renee W ^a   Helvie, Mark A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

Computer aided diagnosis; malignancy; mammography; ROC observer study; ultrasound

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST TUMOR; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL FEATURE; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DECISION MAKING; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; SCORING SYSTEM; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TASK PERFORMANCE; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; TUMOR VOLUME;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SUBTRACTION TECHNIQUE;

EID: 67349194374     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2009.01.011     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Jemal A., Siegel J., Ward E., et al. Cancer statistics, 2007. CA Cancer J Clin 57 (2007) 43-66
2. Bassett L.W., Hendrick R.E., Bassford T.L., et al. Quality determinants of mammography. Clinical Practice Guideline No. 13. AHCPR Publication No. 95-0632 (1994), Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Public Health Service, US Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD
3. Brown M.L., Houn F., Sickles E.A., et al. Screening mammography in community practice: positive predictive value of abnormal findings and yield of follow-up diagnostic procedures. AJR Am J Roentgenol 165 (1995) 1373-1377
4. Gur D., Wallace L.P., Klym A.H., et al. Trends in recall, biopsy, and positive biopsy rates for screening mammography in an academic practice. Radiology 235 (2005) 396-401
5. Huo Z.M., Giger M.L., Vyborny C.J., et al. Computerized classification of benign and malignant masses on digitized mammograms: a study of robustness. Acad Radiol 7 (2000) 1077-1084
6. Mudigonda N.R., Rangayyan R.M., and Desautels J.E.L. Gradient and texture analysis for the classification of mammographic masses. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 19 (2000) 1032-1043
7. Leichter I., Fields S., Nirel R., et al. Improved mammographic interpretation of masses using computer-aided diagnosis. Eur Radiol 10 (2000) 377-383
8. Bilska-Wolak A.O., Floyd C.E., Nolte L.W., et al. Application of likelihood ratio to classification of mammographic masses; performance comparison to case-based reasoning. Med Phys 30 (2003) 949-958
9. Varela C., Timp S., and Karssemeijer N. Use of border information in the classification of mammographic masses. Phys Medic Biol 51 (2006) 425-441
10. Cheng H.D., Shi X.J., Min R., et al. Approaches for automated detection and classification of masses in mammograms. Pattern Recognit 39 (2006) 646-668
11. Delogu P., Fantacci M.E., Kasae P., et al. Characterization of mammographic masses using a gradient-based segmentation algorithm and a neural classifier. Comp Biol Med 37 (2007) 1479-1491
12. Shi J., Sahiner B., Chan H.P., et al. Characterization of mammographic masses based on level set segmentation with new image features and patient information. Med Phys 35 (2008) 280-290
13. Chen D.R., Chang R.F., and Huang Y.L. Computer-aided diagnosis applied to US of solid breast nodules by using neural networks. Radiology 213 (1999) 407-412
14. Dumane V.A., Shankar P.M., Piccoli C.W., et al. Computer aided classification of masses in ultrasonic mammography. Med Phys 29 (2002) 1968-1973
15. Chen C.M., Chou Y.H., Han K.C., et al. Breast lesions on sonograms: computer-aided diagnosis with nearly setting-independent features and artificial neural networks. Radiology 226 (2003) 504-514
16. Horsch K., Giger M.L., Vyborny C.J., et al. Performance of computer-aided diagnosis in the interpretation of lesions on breast sonography. Acad Radiol 11 (2004) 272-280
17. Joo S., Yang Y.S., Moon W.K., et al. Computer-aided diagnosis of solid breast nodules: use of an artificial neural network based on multiple sonographic features. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 23 (2004) 1292-1300
18. Sahiner B., Chan H.P., Roubidoux M.A., et al. Computerized characterization of breast masses on 3-D ultrasound volumes. Med Phys 31 (2004) 744-754
19. Sehgal C.M., Cary T.W., Kangas S.A., et al. Computer-based margin analysis of breast sonography for differentiating malignant and benign masses. J Ultrasound Med 23 (2004) 1201-1209
20. Shen W.C., Chang R.F., Moon W.K., et al. Breast ultrasound computer-aided diagnosis using BI-RADS features. Acad Radiol 14 (2007) 928-939
21. Sahiner B., Chan H.P., Hadjiiski L.M., et al. Fusion of mammographic and sonographic computer-extracted features for improved characterization of breast masses. Proc 7th Int Workshop Digital Mammogr (2004) 199-202
22. Drukker K., Horsch K., and Giger M.L. Multimodality computerized diagnosis of breast lesions using mammography and sonography. Acad Radiol 12 (2005) 970-979
23. Jesneck J.L., Lo J.Y., and Baker J.A. Breast mass lesions: computer-aided diagnosis models with mammographic and sonographic descriptors. Radiology 244 (2007) 390-398
24. Chan H.P., Sahiner B., Helvie M.A., et al. Improvement of radiologists' characterization of mammographic masses by computer-aided diagnosis: an ROC study. Radiology 212 (1999) 817-827
25. Markey M.K., Lo J.Y., and Floyd C.E. Differences between computer-aided diagnosis of breast masses and that of calcifications. Radiology 223 (2002) 489-493
26. Huo Z.M., Giger M.L., Vyborny C.J., et al. Breast cancer: effectiveness of computer-aided diagnosis-observer study with independent database of mammograms. Radiology 224 (2002) 560-568
27. Sahiner B., Chan H.P., Roubidoux M.A., et al. Computer-aided diagnosis of malignant and benign breast masses in 3d ultrasound volumes: effect on radiologists' accuracy. Radiology 242 (2007) 716-724
28. Horsch K., Giger M.L., Vyborny C.J., et al. Classification of breast lesions with multimodality computer-aided diagnosis: observer study results on an independent clinical data set. Radiology 240 (2006) 357-368
29. Bhatti P.T., LeCarpentier G.L., Roubidoux M.A., et al. Discrimination of sonographically detected breast masses using frequency shift color Doppler imaging in combination with age and gray scale criteria. J Ultrasound Med 20 (2001) 343-350
30. Sahiner B., Petrick N., Chan H.P., et al. Computer-aided characterization of mammographic masses: accuracy of mass segmentation and its effects on characterization. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 20 (2001) 1275-1284
31. Hadjiiski L.M., Sahiner B., Chan H.P., et al. Analysis of temporal change of mammographic features: computer-aided classification of malignant and benign breast masses. Med Phys 28 (2001) 2309-2317
32. Sahiner B., Chan H.P., Petrick N., et al. Improvement of mammographic mass characterization using spiculation measures and morphological features. Medi Phys 28 (2001) 1455-1465
33. Sahiner B., Chan H.P., Petrick N., et al. Computerized characterization of masses on mammograms: the rubber band straightening transform and texture analysis. Med Phys 25 (1998) 516-526
34. Sahiner B., Chan H.P., Roubidoux M.A., et al. Computerized characterization of breast masses on 3-D ultrasound volumes. Med Phys 31 (2004) 744-754
35. American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas (BI-RADS Atlas) (2003), American College of Radiology, Reston, VA
36. Sickles E.A. Nonpalpable, circumscribed, noncalcified solid breast masses: likelihood of malignancy based on lesion size and age of patient. Radiology 192 (1994) 439-442
37. Metz C.E. ROC methodology in radiologic imaging. Invest Radiol 21 (1986) 720-733
38. McNeil B.J., and Hanley J.A. Statistical approaches to the analysis of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Med Decis Making 4 (1984) 137-150
39. Dorfman D.D., Berbaum K.S., and Metz C.E. ROC rating analysis: generalization to the population of readers and cases with the jackknife method. Invest Radiol 27 (1992) 723-731
40. Jiang Y., Metz C.E., and Nishikawa R.M. A receiver operating characteristic partial area index for highly sensitive diagnostic tests. Radiology 201 (1996) 745-750
41. Hastie T., Tibshirani R., and Friedman J. The elements of statistical learning (2001), Springer-Verlag, New York
42. Sahiner B., Chan H.P., and Hadjiiski L. Classifier performance prediction for computer-aided diagnosis using a limited data set. Med Phys 35 (2008) 1559-1570
43. Gur D., Rockette H.E., Armfield D.R., et al. Prevalence effect in a laboratory environment. Radiology 228 (2003) 10-14
44. Gur D., Bandos A.I., Fuhrman C.R., et al. The prevalence effect in a laboratory environment: changing the confidence ratings. Acad Radiol 14 (2007) 49-53
45. Egglin T.K.P., and Feinstein A.R. Context bias-aproblem in diagnostic radiology. JAMA 276 (1996) 1752-1755
46. Gur D., Bandos A.I., Cohen C.S., et al. The "laboratory" effect: comparing radiologists' performance and variability during prospective clinical and laboratory mammography interpretations. Radiology 249 (2008) 47-53