Advertisement

Computer-aided-detection marker value and breast density in the detection of invasive lobular carcinoma

  • Stamatia Destounis
  • Sarah Hanson
  • Jimmy Roehrig
Original article

Abstract

Purpose

Invasive Lobular Carcinoma (ILC) is frequently a mammographic and diagnostic dilemma; thus any additional information that CAD (Computer-Aided Detection) systems can give radiologists may be helpful. Our study was to evaluate the role of CAD numeric values as indicators of malignancy and the effect of breast density in the diagnosis of ILC.

Materials and methods

Eighty consecutive biopsy-proven ILC cases with CAD (ImageChecker®, Hologic | R2, Santa Clara, CA, versions 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, 5.0, 5.2) diagnosed between June 2002 and December 2004 were retrospectively reviewed. Data included: BIRADS® breast density, whether CAD marked the cancer at diagnosis year or years prior, and lesion type. Study mammograms underwent additional CAD scans (Image Checker® V5.3, V8.0, V8.1) to obtain a numeric value associated with each marker, low values represent increasingly suspicious features.

Results

CAD correctly marked 65% (52/80) of ILC cases, detection was found to decrease with increased breast density. Numeric values of CAD marks at sites of carcinoma showed median score of 171 (range 0 – 1121).

Conclusion

The CAD marker may potentially be used as an additional indicator of suspicious lesion features in all breast densities and higher likelihood that an area on the mammogram requires further investigation.

Keywords

Breast density Computer aided detection Carcinoma Lobular 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Tot T (2003) The diffuse type of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: morphology and prognosis. Virchows Arch 443:718–724PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Li C, Anderson B, Daling J, Moe R (2003) Trends in incidence rates of invasive lobular and ductal breast carcinoma. JAMA 289(11):1421–1424PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arpino G, Bardou V, Clark G, Elledge R (2004) Infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast: tumor characteristics and clinical outcome. Breast Cancer Res 6(3):R149-R156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Page DL, Anderson TJ (1987) Diagnostic histopathology of the breast. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, pp 219–226Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Destounis SV, DiNitto P, Young W, Bonaccio E, Zuley M, Willison K (2004) Can computer-aided detection with double reading of screening mammograms help decrease the false-negative rate?. initial experience. Radiology 232:578–584PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Roehrig J, Chief Science Officer, R2 Technology, Inc.–A Hologic Company, Santa Clara (Personal Communication)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R2 Corporation, Sunnyvale, CA, presentation “Human Response: Realizing the Potential of CAD”Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Destounis SV (2005) Retrospective study evaluating the accuracy of CAD in marking invasive lobular carcinoma. CARS Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Roehrig J (2005) The Manufacturer’s Perspective. British J Radiol 78:S41–S45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Karssemeijer N, Otten J, Verbeek A, Groenewoud J, de Koning H, Hendricks J, Holland R (2003) Computer-aided detection versus independent double reading of masses on mammograms. Radiology 227:192–200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Skaane P, Kshirsagar A, Young K, Stapleton S (2004) Comparison of CAD performance and independent double-reading in screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: results from the follow-up of the paired oslo I study, November 29, RSNA, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Destounis SV, DiNitto P, Young W, Bonaccio E, Zuley M, Willison K (2007) Computer-aided detection in screening mammography: prospective double blinded study in a clinical practice. Radiology (in press)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mammography Quality Standard Act Regulations, Part 900—Mammography, Subpart B Quality Standards for Certification, www.fda.govGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Elmore J, Barton M, Moceri V, Polk S, Arena P, Fletcher S (1998) Ten year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical brest examinations. NEJM 338(16):1089–1096PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cupples T, Cunningham J, Reynolds J (2005) Impact of Computer-aided detection in a regional screening mammography program. AJR 185:944–950PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brem R, Rapelyea J, Zisman G, Hoffmeister J, DeSimio M (2005) Evaluation of breast cancer with a computer-aided detection system by mammographic appearance and histopathology. Cancer 104(5):931–935PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Morton M, Whaley D, Brandt K, Amrami K (2006) Screening mammograms: interpretation with computer-aided detection–prospective evaluation. Radiology 239(2):375–383PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dean J, Ilvento C (2006) Improved cancer detection using computer-aided detection with diagnostic and screening mammography: prospective study of 104 cancers. AJR 187:20–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roubidoux M, Bailey J, Wray L, Helvie M (2004) Invasive cancers detected after breast cancer screening yielded a negative result: relationship of mammographic density to tumor prognostic factors. Radiology 230:42–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Aiello E, Buist D, White E, Porter P (2005) Association between mammographic breast density and breast cancer tumor characteristics. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 14(3):662–668PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mandelson M, Oestreicher N, Porter P, White D, Finder C, Taplin S, White E (2000) Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. JNCI 92(13):1081–1087PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Brem RF, Hoffmeister JW, Rapelyea JA, Zisman G, Mohtashemi K, Jindal G, DiSimio M, Rogers S (2005) Impact of breast density on computer-aided detection for breast cancer. AJR AM J Roentgenol 184(6):1968Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ho WT, Lam PW (2003) Clinical performance of computer assisted detection (CAD) system in detecting carcinoma in breasts of different densities. Clin Radiol. 58(2):133–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Roehrig J Chief Science Officer, R2 Technology, Inc. –A Hologic Company, Santa Clara, Personal CommunicationGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© CARS 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stamatia Destounis
    • 1
  • Sarah Hanson
    • 1
  • Jimmy Roehrig
    • 2
  1. 1.The Elizabeth Wende Breast ClinicRochesterUSA
  2. 2.R2/Hologic, Inc.Santa ClaraUSA

Personalised recommendations