Computer-aided classification of breast masses: Performance and interobserver variability of expert radiologists versus residents

Radiology

Volumn 258, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 73-80

  Singh, Swatee ^a   Maxwell, Jeff ^b   Baker, Jay A ^a   Nicholas, Jennifer L ^c   Lo, Joseph Y ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b INTERMOUNTAIN MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST LESION; BREAST TUMOR; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER MODEL; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIODIAGNOSIS; RADIOLOGIST; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; RESIDENT; TUMOR DIAGNOSIS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; BIOPSY; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; DIAGNOSIS, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERNSHIP AND RESIDENCY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 78650599059     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10081308     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Lee CH. Screening mammography: proven benefit, continued controversy. Radiol Clin North Am 2002;50(3):395-407.
2. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005;553(17):1773-1783.
3. Helvie MA, Ikeda DM, Adler DD. Localization and needle aspiration of breast lesions: complications in 370 cases. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1991;557(4):711-714.
4. Dixon JM, John TG. Morbidity after breast biopsy for benign disease in a screened population. Lancet 1992;539(8785):128.
5. Hall FM, Storella JM, Silverstone DZ, Wyshak G. Nonpalpable breast lesions: recommendations for biopsy based on suspicion of carcinoma at mammography. Radiology 1988;567(2):353-358.
6. Cyrlak D. Induced costs of low-cost screening mammography. Radiology 1988;568(3):661-663.
7. Barton MB, Morley DS, Moore S, et al. Decreasing women's anxieties after abnormal mammograms: a controlled trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;56(7):529-538.
8. Varas X, Leborgne F, Leborgne JH. Nonpalpable, probably benign lesions: role of follow-up mammography. Radiology 1992;584(2):409-414.
9. Sickles EA. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3, 184 consecutive cases. Radiology 1991;579(2):463-468.
10. Elmore JG, Barton MB, Moceri VM, Polk S, Arena PJ, Fletcher SW. Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. N Engl J Med 1998;538(16):1089-1096.
11. Stavros A T, Thickman D, Rapp CL, Dennis MA, Parker SH, Sisney GA. Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology 1995;596(1):123-134.
12. Rahbar G, Sie AC, Hansen GC, et al. Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation. Radiology 1999;513(3):889-894.
13. Jackson VP. The role of US in breast imaging. Radiology 1990;577(2):305-311.
14. Jackson VP. Management of solid breast nodules: what is the role of sonography? Radiology 1995;596(1):14-15.
15. Zonderland HM, Coerkamp EG, Hermans J, van de Vijver MJ, van Voorthuisen AE. Diagnosis of breast cancer: contribution of US as an adjunct to mammography. Radiology 1999;513(2):413-422.
16. Chang RF, Kuo WJ, Chen DR, Huang YL, Lee JH, Chou YH. Computer-aided diagnosis for surgical office-based breast ultrasound. Arch Surg 2000;535(6):696-699.
17. Chen D, Chang RF, Huang YL. Breast cancer diagnosis using self-organizing map for sonography. Ultrasound Med Biol 2000;56(3):405-411.
18. Giger ML. Computerized analysis of images in the detection and diagnosis of breast cancer. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2004;55(5):411-418.
19. Drukker K, Giger ML, Vyborny CJ, Mendelson EB. Computerized detection and classification of cancer on breast ultrasound. Acad Radiol 2004;51(5):526-535.
20. Drukker K, Giger ML, Metz CE. Robustness of computerized lesion detection and classification scheme across different breast US platforms. Radiology 2005;537(3):834-840.
21. Moon WK, Chang RF, Chen CJ, Chen DR, Chen WL. Solid breast masses: classification with computer-aided analysis of continuous US images obtained with probe compression. Radiology 2005;536(2):458-464.
22. Chen DR, Chang RF, Chen CJ, et al. Classification of breast ultrasound images using fractal feature. Clin Imaging 2005;59(4):235-245.
23. Jiang Y, Nishikawa RM, Schmidt RA, Metz CE, Giger ML, Doi K. Improving breast cancer diagnosis with computer-aided diagnosis. Acad Radiol 1999;5(1):22-33.
24. Huo Z, Giger ML, Vyborny CJ, Wolverton DE, Schmidt RA, Doi K. Automated computerized classification of malignant and benign masses on digitized mammograms. Acad Radiol 1998;5(3):155-168.
25. Hadjiiski L, Sahiner B, Chan HP, Petrick N, Helvie MA, Gurcan M. Analysis of temporal changes of mammographic features: computer-aided classification of malignant and benign breast masses. Med Phys 2001;58(11):2309-2317. (Pubitemid 33095565)
26. Baker JA, Kornguth PJ, Lo JY, Williford ME, Floyd CE Jr. Breast cancer: prediction with artificial neural network based on BI-RADS standardized lexicon. Radiology 1995;596(3):817-822.
27. Jesneck JL, Lo JY, Baker JA. Breast mass lesions: computer-aided diagnosis models with mammographic and sonographic descriptors. Radiology 2007;544(2):390-398.
28. Jesneck JL, Nolte LW, Baker JA, Floyd CE Jr, Lo JY. Optimized approach to decision fusion of heterogeneous data for breast cancer diagnosis. Med Phys 2006;53(8):2945-2954.
29. Drukker K, Horsch K, Giger ML. Multimodality computerized diagnosis of breast lesions using mammography and sonography. Acad Radiol 2005;52(8):970-979.
30. Shi J, Sahiner B, Chan HP, et al. Characterization of mammographic masses based on level set segmentation with new image features and patient information. Med Phys 2008;55(1):280-290.
31. Hadjiiski L, Sahiner B, Helvie MA, et al. Breast masses: computer-aided diagnosis with serial mammograms. Radiology 2006;540(2):343-356.
32. Sahiner B, Petrick N, Chan HP, et al. Computeraided characterization of mammographic masses: accuracy of mass segmentation and its effects on characterization. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2001;50(12):1275-1284.
33. Sahiner B, Chan HP, Petrick N, Helvie MA, Hadjiiski LM. Improvement of mammographic mass characterization using spiculation measures and morphological features. Med Phys 2001;58(7):1455-1465.
34. Elter M, Horsch A. CADx of mammographic masses and clustered microcalcifications: a review. Med Phys 2009;56(6):2052-2068.
35. Sahiner B, Chan HP, Hadjiiski LM, et al. Multi-modality CADx: ROC study of the effect on radiologists' accuracy in characterizing breast masses on mammograms and 3D ultrasound images. Acad Radiol 2009;56(7):810-818.
36. Drukker K, Gruszauskas NP, Sennett CA, Giger ML. Breast US computer-aided diagnosis workstation: performance with a large clinical diagnostic population. Radiology 2008;548(2):392-397.
37. Li H, Giger ML, Yuan Y, et al. Evaluation of computer-aided diagnosis on a large clinical full-field digital mammographic dataset. Acad Radiol 2008;55(11):1437-1445.
38. American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). 4th ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2004.
39. Huo Z, Giger ML, Vyborny CJ, Metz CE. Breast cancer: effectiveness of computeraided diagnosis observer study with independent database of mammograms. Radiology 2002;524(2):560-568.
40. Horsch K, Giger ML, Vyborny CJ, Venta LA. Performance of computer-aided diagnosis in the interpretation of lesions on breast sonography. Acad Radiol 2004;51(3):272-280.
41. Horsch K, Giger ML, Metz CE. Potential effect of different radiologist reporting methods on studies showing benefit of CAD. Acad Radiol 2008;55(2):139-152.
42. Gupta S, Chyn PF, Markey MK. Breast cancer CADx based on BI-RADS descriptors from two mammographic views. Med Phys 2006;53(6):1810-1817.
43. Markey MK, Lo JY, Floyd CE Jr. Differences between computer-aided diagnosis of breast masses and that of calcifications. Radiology 2002;523(2):489-493.
44. Markey MK, Lo JY, Tourassi GD, Floyd CE Jr. Self-organizing map for cluster analysis of a breast cancer database. Artif Intell Med 2003;57(2):113-127.
45. Elmore JG, Miglioretti DL, Reisch LM, et al. Screening mammograms by community radiologists: variability in false-positive rates. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;54(18):1373-1380.
46. Barlow WE, Chi C, Carney PA, et al. Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;56(24):1840-1850.
47. Smith-Bindman R, Chu P, Miglioretti DL, et al. Physician predictors of mammographic accuracy. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;57(5):358-367.
48. Tan A, Freeman DH Jr, Goodwin JS, Freeman JL. Variation in false-positive rates of mammography reading among 1067 radiologists: a population-based assessment. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2006;500(3):309-318.
49. Kan L, Olivotto IA, Warren Burhenne LJ, Sickles EA, Coldman AJ. Standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening program. Radiology 2000;515(2):563-567.
50. Molins E, Macià F, Ferrer F, Maristany MT, Castells X. Association between radiologists' experience and accuracy in interpreting screening mammograms. BMC Health Serv Res 2008;5:91.
51. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 1960;50(1):37-46.
52. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;53(1):159-174.
53. Berg W A, D'Orsi CJ, Jackson VP, et al. Does training in the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) improve biopsy recommendations or feature analysis agreement with experienced breast imagers at mammography? Radiology 2002;524(3):871-880.
54. Lee HJ, Kim EK, Kim MJ, et al. Observer variability of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) for breast ultrasound. Eur J Radiol 2008;55(2):293-298.
55. Antonio AL, Crespi CM. Predictors of interobserver agreement in breast imaging using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010;520(3):539-546.
56. Abdullah N, Mesurolle B, El-Khoury M, Kao E. Breast imaging reporting and data system lexicon for US: interobserver agreement for assessment of breast masses. Radiology 2009;552(3):665-672.
57. Lazarus E, Mainiero MB, Schepps B, Koelliker SL, Livingston LS. BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value. Radiology 2006;539(2):385-391.
58. Lo JY, Markey MK, Baker JA, Floyd CE Jr. Cross-institutional evaluation of BI-RADS predictive model for mammographic diagnosis of breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;578(2):457-463.
59. Elmore JG, Wells CK, Lee CH, Howard DH, Feinstein AR. Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms. N Engl J Med 1994;531(22):1493- 1499.
60. Baker JA, Kornguth PJ, Lo JY, Floyd CE Jr. Artificial neural network: improving the quality of breast biopsy recommendations. Radiology 1996;598(1):131-135.
61. Bilska-Wolak AO, Floyd CE Jr, Lo JY, Baker JA. Computer aid for decision to biopsy breast masses on mammography: validation on new cases. Acad Radiol 2005;52(6):671-680.