Multimodality Computer-Aided Breast Cancer Diagnosis with FFDM and DCE-MRI

Academic Radiology

Volumn 17, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 1158-1167

  Yuan, Yading ^a   Giger, Maryellen L ^a   Li, Hui ^a   Bhooshan, Neha ^a   Sennett, Charlene A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; BREAST CANCER; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DATA BASE; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE DISPLAY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

EID: 77955386829     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2010.04.015     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Jemal A., Siegel R., Ward E., et al. Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin 2009, 59:225-249.
2. Heywang-Kobrunner S.H., Dershaw D.D., Schreer I. Diagnostic breast imaging: mammography, sonography, magnetic resonance imaging, and interventional procedures 2001, Thieme Medical Publisher, New York.
3. Kuhl C.K. The current status of breast MR imaging: part II: clinical applications. Radiology 2007, 244:672-691.
4. Humphrey L.L., Helfand M., Chan B., et al. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. preventive services task force. Ann Intern Med 2002, 137:347-360.
5. Saving women's lives: Integration and innovation: a framework for progress in early detection and diagnosis of breast cancer 2005, Institute of Medicine, Washington D National Academic Press.
6. Harms S.E. Technical report of the international working group on breast MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999, 10. 980-980.
7. Bird R.E., Wallace T.W., Yankaskas B.C. Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography. Radiology 1992, 184:613-617.
8. Beam C.A., Layde P.M., Sullivan D.C. Variability in the interpretation of screening mammography by US radiologists: findings from a national sample. Arch Intern Med 1996, 156:209-213.
9. Lehman C.D., Gatsonis C., Kuhl C.K., et al. MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007, 356:1295-1303.
10. Kuhl C.K., Schrading S., Bieling H.B., et al. MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: A prospective observational study. Lancet 2007, 370:485-492.
11. Peters N.H., Rinkes I.H.B., Zuithoff N.P., et al. Meta-analysis of mr imaging in the diagnosis of breast lesions. Radiology 2008, 246:116-124.
12. Giger M.L., Chan H.P., Boone J. Anniversary paper: history and status of CAD and quantitative image analysis: the role of medical physics and AAPM. Med Phys 2008, 35:5799-5820.
13. Elter M., Horsch A. CADx of mammographic masses and clutered microcalcifications: a review. Med Phys 2009, 36:2052-2068.
14. Gale A.G., Roebuck E.J., Riley P., et al. Computer aids to mammographic diagnosis. Br J Radiol 1987, 60:887-891.
15. Swett H.A., Miller P.A. ICON: a computer-based approach to differential diagnosis in radiology. Radiology 1987, 163:555-558.
16. Huo Z., Giger M.L., Vyborny C.J., et al. Automated computerized classification of malignant and benign masses on digitized mammograms. Acad Radiol 1998, 5:155-168.
17. Garra B.S., Krasner B.H., Horii S.C., et al. Improving the distinction between benign and malignant breast lesions: the value of sonographic texture analysis. Ultrason Imaging 1993, 15:267-285.
18. Huber S., Delorme S., Knopp M.V., et al. Breast tumors: computer-assisted quantitative assessment with color Doppler US. Radiology 1994, 192:797-801.
19. Giger M.L., Al-Hallaq H., Huo Z., et al. Computerized analysis of lesions in ultrasound images of the breast. Acad Radiol 1999, 6:665-674.
20. Horsch K., Giger M.L., Venta L.A., et al. Computerized diagnosis of breast lesions on ultrasound. Med Phys 2002, 29:157-164.
21. Gilhuijs K.G.A., Giger M.L., Bick U. Automated analysis of breast lesions in three dimensions using dynamic magnetic resonance imaging. Med Phys 1998, 25:1647-1654.
22. Penn A.I., Bolinger L., Schnall M.D., et al. Discrimination of MR images of breast masses with fractal-interpolation function models. Acad Radiol 1999, 6:156-163.
23. Chen W., Giger M.L., Lan L., et al. Computerized interpretation of breast MRI: investigation of enhancement-variance dynamics. Med Phys 2004, 31:1076-1082.
24. Sahiner B., Chan H., Petrick N., et al. Improvement of mammographic mass characterization using spiculation measures and morphological features. Med Phys 2001, 28:1455-1465.
25. Varela C., Timp S., Karssemeijer N. Use of border information in the 25. Classification of mammographic masses. Phys Med Biol 2006, 51:425-441.
26. Huang S., Chang R., Chen D., et al. Characterization of spiculation on ultrasound lesions. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2004, 23:111-121.
27. Sahiner B., Chan H., Roubidoux M.A., et al. Computerized characterization of breast masses on three-dimensional ultrasound volumes. Med Phys 2004, 31:744-754.
28. Chen W., Giger M.L., Bick U., et al. Automatic identification and classification of characteristic kinetic curves of breast lesions on DCE-MRI. Med Phys 2006, 33:2878-2887.
29. Zheng Y., Baloch B., Englander S., et al. Segmentation and classification of breast tumor using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images. In: Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention. MICCAI 2007, 4792:393-401.
30. Williams T.C., DeMartini W.B., Partridge S.C., et al. Breast MR imaging: computer-aided evaluation program for discriminating benign from malignant lesions. Radiology 2007, 244:94-103.
31. Drukker K., Horsch K., Giger M.L. Multimodality computerized diagnosis of breast lesions using mammography and sonography. Acad Radiol 2005, 12:970-979.
32. Jesneck J.L., Lo J.Y., Baker J.A. Breast mass lesions: computer-aided diagnosis methods with mammographic and sonographic descriptors. Radiology 2007, 244:390-398.
33. 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 2006, 240:357-368.
34. Horsch K., Giger M.L., Metz C.E. Potential effect of different radiologist reporting methods on studies showing benefit of CAD. Acad Radiol 2008, 15:139-152.
35. Sahiner B., Chan H.-P., Hadjiiski L.M., et al. Multimodality CADx: ROC study of the effect on radiologists' accuracy in characterizing breast masses on mammograms and 3D ultrasound images. Acad Radiol 2009, 16:810-818.
36. Li H., Giger M.L., Yuan Y., et al. Evaluation of computer-aided diagnosis on a large clinical full-field digital mammographic dataset. Acad Radiol 2008, 15:1437-1445.
37. Yuan Y., Giger M.L., Li H., et al. A dual-stage method for lesion segmentation on digital mammograms. Med Phys 2007, 34:4180-4193.
38. Huo Z., Giger M.L., Vyborny C.J., et al. Analysis of spiculation in the computerized classification of mammographic masses. Med Phys 1995, 22:1569-1579.
39. Chen W., Giger M.L., Bick U. A fuzzy c-mean (FCM)-based approach for computerized segmentation of breast lesions in dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images. Acad Radiol 2006, 13:63-72.
40. Chan T.F., Vese L.A. Active contours without edges. IEEE Trans Image Processing 2001, 10:266-277.
41. Kupinski M.A., Giger M.L. Automated seeded lesion segmentation on digital mammograms. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1998, 17:510-517.
42. Lachenbruch P.A. Discriminant analysis 1975, Hafner, London, UK.
43. Bishop C.M. Neural networks for pattern recognition 1995, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.
44. Kupinski M.A., Edwards D.C., Giger M.L., et al. Ideal observer approximation using Bayesian classification neural networks. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2001, 20:886-899.
45. Li Q., Doi K. Reduction of bias and variance for evaluation of computer-aided diagnostic schemes. Med Phys 2006, 33:868-875.
46. Metz C.E. ROC methology in radiologic imaging. Invest Radiol 1986, 21:720-733.
47. Metz C.E., Herman B.A., Shen J. Maximum likelihood estimation of receiver operating characteristic ROC curves from continuously-distributed data. Stat Med 1998, 17:1033-1053.
48. Metz C.E., Herman B.A., Roe C.A. Statistical comparison of two ROC-curve estimates obtained from partially-paired datasets. Med Decision Making 1998, 18:110-121.
49. Glantz S.A. Primer of biostatistics 2002, McGraw-Hill, New York.
50. Kuhl C.K., Schild H.H. Dynamic imaging interpretation of MRI of the breast. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000, 12:965-974.
51. Japkowicz N., Stephen S. The class imbalance problem: a systematic study. Intell Data Anal 2002, 6:429-449.
52. Weiss G.M., Provost F. Learning when training data are costly: The effect of class distribution on tree induction. J Artificial Intell Res 2003, 19:315-354.