The objective of this study is to retrospectively investigate whether using the newly developed algorithms would improve radiologists’ accuracy for discriminating malignant masses from benign ones on ultrasonographic (US) images. Five radiologists blinded to the histological results and clinical history independently interpreted 226 cases according to the sonographic lexicon of the fourth edition of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System and assigned a final assessment category to indicate the probability of malignancy. For each case, each radiologist provided three diagnoses: first with the original images, subsequently with the assistant of the resulting images processed by the proposed CAD algorithms which are called as processed images, and another using the processed images only. Observers’ malignancy rating data were analyzed with the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. For reading only with the processed images, areas under the ROC curve (Az) of each reader (0.863, 0.867, 0.859, 0.868, 0.878) were better than that with the original images (0.772, 0.807, 0.796, 0.828, 0.846), difference of the average Az between the twice reading was significant (p < 0.001). Compared with the results single used processed images, Az of utilizing the combined images were increased (0.866, 0.885, 0.872, 0.894, 0.903), but the difference is not statistically significant (p = 0.081). The proposed CAD method has potential to be a good aid to radiologists in distinguishing malignant breast solid masses from benign ones.
Computer-aided diagnosis ultrasound breast cancer BI-RADS
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) is greatly appreciated; grant numbers: 30670546 and 60873142.
Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Murray T, Thun MJ: Cancer statistics, 2008. Cancer J Clin 58:71–96, 2008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smigal C, Jemal A, Ward E, Cokkinides V, Smith R, Howe HL, Thun M: Trends in breast cancer by race and ethnicity: update 2006. CA Cancer J Clin 56:168–183, 2006CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Hong AS, Rosen EL, Soo MS, Baker JA: BI-RADS for sonography: positive and negative predictive values of sonographic features. Am J Roentgenol 184:1260–1265, 2005Google Scholar
Costantini M, Belli P, Ierardi C, Franceschini G, La Torre G, Bonomo L: Solid breast mass characterisation: use of the sonographic BI-RADS classification. Radiol Med 112:877–894, 2007CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Sehgal CM, Cary TW, Kangas SA, Weinstein SP, Schultz SM, Arger PH, Conant EF: Computer-based margin analysis of breast sonography for differentiating malignant and benign masses. J Ultrasound Med 23:1201–1209, 2004PubMedGoogle Scholar
Shen W, Chang R, Moon W, Chou Y, Huang C: Breast ultrasound computer-aided diagnosis using BI-RADS features. Acad Radiol 14:928–939, 2007CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Chen CM, Chou YH, Han KC, Hung GS, Tiu CM, Chiou HJ, Chiou SY: Breast lesions on sonograms: computer-aided diagnosis with nearly setting-independent features and artificial neural networks. Radiology 226:504–514, 2003CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Huang YL, Chen DR, Jiang YR, Kuo SJ, Wu HK, Moon WK: Computer-aided diagnosis using morphological features for classifying breast lesions on ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 32:565–572, 2008CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Sahiner B, Chan HP, Roubidoux MA, Hadjiiski LM, Helvie MA, Paramagul C, Bailey J, Nees AV, Blane C: Malignant and benign breast masses on 3D US volumetric images: effect of computer-aided diagnosis on radiologist accuracy. Radiology 242:716–724, 2007CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Chen DR, Chang RF, Chen WM, Moon WK: Computer-aided diagnosis for 3-dimensional breast ultrasonography. Arch Surg 138:296–302, 2003CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Schoonjans F, Zalata A, Depuydt CE, Comhaire FH: MedCalc: a new computer program for medical statistics. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 48:257–262, 1995CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Krupinski EA: Computer-aided detection in clinical environment: benefits and challenges for radiologists. Radiology 231:7–9, 2004CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Gilbert FJ, Astley SM, McGee MA, Gillan MGC, Boggis CRM, Griffiths PM: Single reading with computer-aided detection and double reading of screening mammograms in the United Kingdom National Breast Screening Program. Radiology 241(1):47–53, 2006CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Berg WA, D’Orsi CJ, Jackson VP, Bassett LW, Beam CA, Lewis RS, Crewson PE: 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 224:871–880, 2002CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar