Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

A Comparison of Logistic Regression Analysis and an Artificial Neural Network Using the BI-RADS Lexicon for Ultrasonography in Conjunction with Introbserver Variability

  • Published:
Journal of Digital Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To determine which Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) descriptors for ultrasound are predictors for breast cancer using logistic regression (LR) analysis in conjunction with interobserver variability between breast radiologists, and to compare the performance of artificial neural network (ANN) and LR models in differentiation of benign and malignant breast masses. Five breast radiologists retrospectively reviewed 140 breast masses and described each lesion using BI-RADS lexicon and categorized final assessments. Interobserver agreements between the observers were measured by kappa statistics. The radiologists’ responses for BI-RADS were pooled. The data were divided randomly into train (n = 70) and test sets (n = 70). Using train set, optimal independent variables were determined by using LR analysis with forward stepwise selection. The LR and ANN models were constructed with the optimal independent variables and the biopsy results as dependent variable. Performances of the models and radiologists were evaluated on the test set using receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Among BI-RADS descriptors, margin and boundary were determined as the predictors according to stepwise LR showing moderate interobserver agreement. Area under the ROC curves (AUC) for both of LR and ANN were 0.87 (95% CI, 0.77–0.94). AUCs for the five radiologists ranged 0.79–0.91. There was no significant difference in AUC values among the LR, ANN, and radiologists (p > 0.05). Margin and boundary were found as statistically significant predictors with good interobserver agreement. Use of the LR and ANN showed similar performance to that of the radiologists for differentiation of benign and malignant breast masses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jackson VP, Reynolds HE, Hawes DR: Sonography of the breast. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 17:460–475, 1996

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Radiology ACo: ACR Standards 2000–2001. American College of Radiolo, Reston, 2000

    Google Scholar 

  3. Baker JA, Soo MS: Breast US, assessment of technical quality and image interpretation. Radiology 223:229–238, 2002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Baker JA, Soo MS, Rosen EL: Artifacts and pitfalls in sonographic imaging of the breast. AJR 176:1261–1266, 2001

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Rizzatto GJ: Towards a more sophisticated use of breast ultrasound. Eur Radiol 11:2425–2435, 2001

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Schroeder RJ, Bostanjoglo M, Rademaker J, Maeurer J, Felix R: Role of power Doppler techniques and ultrasound contrast enhancement in the differential diagnosis of focal breast lesions. Eur Radiol 13:68–79, 2003

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dempsey PJ: The history of breast ultrasound. J Ultrasound Med 23:887–894, 2004

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL, Dennis MA, Parker SH, Sisney GA: Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology 196:123–134, 1995

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, Carter WB, Bhargavan M, Lewis RS, et al: Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology 233:830–849, 2004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mendelson EB: Problem-solving ultrasound. Radiol Clin North Am 42:909–918, 2004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mehta TS: Current uses of ultrasound in the evaluation of the breast. Radiol Clin North Am 41:841–856, 2003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Radiology ACo: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, Ultrasound, 4th edition. American College of Radiology, Reston, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  13. Baker JA, Kornguth PJ, Floyd Jr, CE: Breast imaging reporting and data system standardized mammography lexicon: observer variability in lesion description. AJR 166:773–778, 1996

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Lazarus E, Mainiero MB, Schepps B, Koelliker SL, Livingston LS: BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value. Radiology 239:385–391, 2006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lee HJ, Kim EK, Kim MJ, Youk JH, Lee JY, Kang DR, et al: Observer variability of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) for breast ultrasound. Eur J Radiol 65:293–298, 2008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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 252:665–672, 2009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Park CS, Lee JH, Yim HW, Kang BJ, Kim HS, Jung JI, et al: Observer agreement using the ACR Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS)-ultrasound, First Edition (2003). Korean J Radiol 8:397–402, 2007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Song JH, Venkatesh SS, Conant EA, Arger PH, Sehgal CM: Comparative analysis of logistic regression and artificial neural network for computer-aided diagnosis of breast masses. Acad Radiol 12:487–495, 2005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ayer T, Chhatwal J, Alagoz O, Kahn Jr, CE, Woods RW, Burnside ES: Comparison of logistic regression and artificial neural network models in breast cancer risk estimation. Radiographics 30:13–22, 2010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Tu JV: Advantages and disadvantages of using artificial neural networks versus logistic regression for predicting medical outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 49:1225–1231, 1996

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Hecht-Nielsen R: Replicator neural networks for universal optimal source coding. Science 269:1860–1863, 1995

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Baker JA, Kornguth PJ, Lo JY, Floyd Jr, CE: Artificial neural network: improving the quality of breast biopsy recommendations. Radiology 198:131–135, 1996

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Baker JA, Kornguth PJ, Lo JY, Williford ME, Floyd Jr, CE: Breast cancer: prediction with artificial neural network based on BI-RADS standardized lexicon. Radiology 196:817–822, 1995

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Wu Y, Giger ML, Doi K, Vyborny CJ, Schmidt RA, Metz CE: Artificial neural networks in mammography: application to decision making in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Radiology 187:81–87, 1993

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Landis JR, Koch GG: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174, 1977

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Chou YH, Tiu CM, Hung GS, Wu SC, Chang TY, Chiang HK: Stepwise logistic regression analysis of tumor contour features for breast ultrasound diagnosis. Ultrasound Med Biol 27:1493–1498, 2001

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ: A method comparing the areas under receiver operator characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 148:839–843, 1983

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Hong AS, Rosen EL, Soo MS, Baker JA: BI-RADS for sonography: positive and negative predictive values of sonographic features. AJR 184:1260–1265, 2005

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Heon Han.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kim, S.M., Han, H., Park, J.M. et al. A Comparison of Logistic Regression Analysis and an Artificial Neural Network Using the BI-RADS Lexicon for Ultrasonography in Conjunction with Introbserver Variability. J Digit Imaging 25, 599–606 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-012-9457-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-012-9457-7

Keywords

Navigation