Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Decrease in interpretation time for both novice and experienced readers using a concurrent computer-aided detection system for digital breast tomosynthesis

  • Breast
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the diagnostic performance and interpretation time of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) for both novice and experienced readers with and without using a computer-aided detection (CAD) system for concurrent read.

Methods

CAD system was developed for concurrent read in DBT interpretation. In this observer performance study, we used an enriched sample of 100 DBT cases including 70 with and 30 without breast cancers. Image interpretation was performed by four radiologists with different experience levels (two experienced and two novice). Each reader completed two reading sessions (at a minimum 2-month interval), once with and once without CAD. Three different rating scales were used to record each reader’s interpretation. Reader performance with and without CAD was reported and compared for each radiologist. Reading time for each case was also recorded.

Results

Average area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values for BI-RADS scale on using CAD were 0.778 and 0.776 without using CAD, demonstrating no statistically significant differences. Results were consistent when the probability of malignancy and percentage probability of malignancy scales were used. Reading times per case were 72.07 s and 62.03 s (SD, 37.54 s vs 34.38 s) without and with CAD, respectively. The average difference in reading time on using CAD was a statistically significant decrease of 10.04 ± 1.85 s, providing 14% decrease in time. The time-reducing effect was consistently observed in both novice and experienced readers.

Conclusion

DBT combined with CAD reduced interpretation time without diagnostic performance loss to novice and experienced readers.

Key Points

• The use of a concurrent DBT-CAD system shortened interpretation time.

• The shortened interpretation time with DBT-CAD did not come at a cost to diagnostic performance to novice or experienced readers.

• The concurrent DBT-CAD system improved the efficiency of DBT interpretation.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CAD:

Computer-aided detection

DBT:

Digital breast tomosynthesis

FFDM:

Full-field digital mammography

References

  1. Tabár L, Vitak B, Chen HH, Yen MF, Duffy SW, Smith RA (2001) Beyond randomized controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality. Cancer 91:1724–1731

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening (2012) The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet 380:1778–1786

  3. Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ et al (2007) Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 356:227–236

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Harvey JA, Bovbjerg VE (2004) Quantitative assessment of mammographic breast density: relationship with breast cancer risk. Radiology 230:29–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH (2002) Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 225:165–175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chiu SY, Duffy S, Yen AM, Tabar L, Smith RA, Chen HH (2010) Effect of baseline breast density on breast cancer incidence, stage, mortality, and screening parameters: 25-year follow-up of a Swedish mammographic screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 19:1219–1228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V (1996) Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA 276:33–38

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013) Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration. Eur Radiol 23:2061–2071

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013) Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 267:47–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D et al (2013) Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 14:583–589

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lång K, Andersson I, Rosso A, Tingberg A, Timberg P, Zackrisson S (2016) Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study. Eur Radiol 26:184–190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dang PA, Freer PE, Humphrey KL, Halpern EF, Rafferty EA (2014) Addition of tomosynthesis to conventional digital mammography: effect on image interpretation time of screening examinations. Radiology 270:49–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Benedikt RA, Boatsman JE, Swann CA, Kirkpatrick AD, Toledano AY (2018) Concurrent computer-aided detection improves reading time of digital breast tomosynthesis and maintains interpretation performance in a multireader multicase study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 210:685–694

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Balleyguier C, Arfi-Rouche J, Levy L et al (2017) Improving digital breast tomosynthesis reading time: a pilot multi-reader, multi-case study using concurrent computer-aided detection (CAD). Eur J Radiol 97:83–89

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Duda RO, Hart PE (1972) Use of the Hough transformation to detect lines and curves in pictures. Commun ACM 15:11–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ballard DH (1981) Generalizing the Hough transform to detect arbitrary shapes. Pattern Recogn 13:111–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. He K, Zhang X, Ren S, Sun J (2016) Deep residual learning for image recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, p 770–778

  18. Jeong JW, Chae SH, Cho YL et al (2017) A deep convolutional neural network based false positive reduction in mass detection algorithm on digital breast tomosynthesis images. Int J CARS 12(Suppl 1):S273

    Google Scholar 

  19. Choi WJ, Kim HH, Lee SY et al (2016) A comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for the detection of breast cancers. Breast Cancer 23:886–892

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chae EY, Kim HH, Cha JH, Shin HJ, Choi WJ (2016) Detection and characterization of breast lesions in a selective diagnostic population: diagnostic accuracy study for comparison between one-view digital breast tomosynthesis and two-view full-field digital mammography. Br J Radiol 89:20150743

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM et al (2009) Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:586–591

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Poplack SP, Tosteson TD, Kogel CA, Nagy HM (2007) Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:616–623

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Vedantham S, Karellas A, Vijayaraghavan GR, Kopans DB (2015) Digital breast tomosynthesis: state of the art. Radiology 277:663–684

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE et al (2013) Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology 266:104–113

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Hooley RJ, Durand MA, Philpotts LE (2017) Advances in digital breast tomosynthesis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 208:256–266

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. McCarthy AM, Kontos D, Synnestvedt M et al (2014) Screening outcomes following implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis in a general-population screening program. J Natl Cancer Inst 106(11). https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dju316

  27. Tucker L, Gilbert FJ, Astley SM et al (2017) Does reader performance with digital breast tomosynthesis vary according to experience with two-dimensional mammography? Radiology 283:371–380

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study has received funding by the R&D Convergence Program (Grant Number: CAP-13-3-KERI) of the National Research Council of Science & Technology (NST) of the Republic of Korea.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88, Olympic-ro 43-Gil, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, 05505, Republic of Korea

    Eun Young Chae & Hak Hee Kim

  2. Medical Imaging Research Section, Electronics & Telecommunications Research Institute, 218 Gajeongno, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 34129, Republic of Korea

    Ji-wook Jeong, Seung-Hoon Chae & Sooyeul Lee

  3. Advanced Medical Device Research Division, Korea Electrotechnology Research Institute, 111 Hanggaul-ro, Sangnok-gu, Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-do, 15588, Republic of Korea

    Young-Wook Choi

Authors
  1. Eun Young Chae
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hak Hee Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ji-wook Jeong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Seung-Hoon Chae
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sooyeul Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Young-Wook Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hak Hee Kim.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Hak Hee Kim.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

Mingyu Han kindly provided statistical advice for this manuscript.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• retrospective

• experimental

• performed at one institution

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chae, E.Y., Kim, H.H., Jeong, Jw. et al. Decrease in interpretation time for both novice and experienced readers using a concurrent computer-aided detection system for digital breast tomosynthesis. Eur Radiol 29, 2518–2525 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5886-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5886-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation