Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Effect of Breast Density on Computer Aided Detection

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

Purpose: This study was conducted to assess the clinical impact of breast density and density of the lesion’s background on the performance of a computer-aided detection (CAD) system in the detection of breast masses (MA) and microcalcifications (MC). Materials and Methods: A total of 200 screening mammograms interpreted as BI-RADS 1 and suspicious mammograms of 150 patients having a histologically verified malignancy from 1992 to 2000 were selected by using a sampler of tumor cases. Excluding those cases having more than one lesion or a contralateral malignancy attributable to statistical reasons, 127 cases with 127 malignant findings were analyzed with a CAD system (Second Look 5.0, CADx Systems, Inc., Beavercreek, OH). Of the 127 malignant lesions, 56 presented as MC and 101 presented as MA, including 30 cases with both malignant signs. Overall breast density of the mammogram and density of the lesion’s background were determined by two observers in congruence (density a: entirely fatty, density b: scattered fibroglandular tissue, density c: heterogeneously dense, density d: extremely dense). Results: Within the unsuspicious group, 100/200 cases did not have any CAD MA marks and were therefore truly negative (specificity 50%), and 151/200 cases did not have any CAD MC marks (specificity 75.5%). For these 200 cases, the numbers of marks per image were 0.41 and 0.37 (density a), 0.38 and 0.97 (density b), 0.44 and 0.91 (density c), and 0.58 and 0.68 (density d) for MC and MA marks, respectively (Fisher’s t-test: n.s. for MC, p < 0.05 for MA). Malignant lesions were correctly detected in at least one view by the CAD system for 52/56 (92.8%) MC and 91/101 (90.1%) MA. Detection rate versus breast density was: 4/6 (66.7%) and 18/19 (94.7%) (density a), 32/33 (97.0%) and 49/51 (96.1%) (density b), 14/15 (93.3%) and 23/28 (82.1%) (density c), and 2/2 (100%) and 1/3 (33.3%) (density d) for MC and MA, respectively. Detection rate versus the lesion’s background was: 19/21 (90.5%) and 36/38 (94.7%) (density a), 34/36 (94.4%) and 59/62 (95.2%) (density b), 8/9 (88.9%) and 20/24 (83.3%) (density c), and 9/10 (90%) and 4/8 (50%) (density d) for groups 2 and 3, respectively. Detection rates differed significantly for masses in heterogeneously dense and extremely dense tissue (overall or lesion’s background) versus all other densities (Fisher’s t-test: p < 0.05). A significantly lowered FP rate for masses was found on mammograms of entirely fatty tissue. Conclusion: Overall breast density and density at a lesion’s background do not appear to have a significant effect on CAD sensitivity or specificity for MC. CAD sensitivity for MA may be lowered in cases with heterogeneously and extremely dense breasts, and CAD specificity for MA is highest in cases with extremely fatty breasts. The effects of overall breast density and density of a lesion’s background appear to be similar.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. RE Bird (1990) ArticleTitleProfessional quality assurance for mammography screening programs Radiology 177 8–10

    Google Scholar 

  2. HP Chan K Doi CJ Vyborny et al. (1990) ArticleTitleImprovement in radiologists detection of clustered MC on mammograms: the potential of computer-aided diagnosis Invest Radiol 25 1102–1110 Occurrence Handle2079409

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. B Zheng YH Chang M Staiger W Good D Gur (1995) ArticleTitleComputer-aided detection of clustered MC in digitized mammograms Acad Radiol 2 655–662 Occurrence Handle9419620

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. HP Chan B Sahiner MA Helvie et al. (1999) ArticleTitleImprovement of radiologist’s characterization of mammographic MA by using computer-aided diagnosis: an ROC-study Radiology 212 817–827 Occurrence Handle10478252

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. EL Thurfjell KA Lernevall AAS Taube (1994) ArticleTitleBenefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program Radiology 191 241–244 Occurrence Handle8134580

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. N Karssemeijer JH Hendriks (1997) ArticleTitleComputer-assisted reading of mammograms Eur Radiol 7 743–748 Occurrence Handle9166576

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. S Ciatto B Brancato RM Turco ParticleDel et al. (2003) ArticleTitleComparison of standard reading and computer aided diagnosis (CAD) on a proficiency test of screening mammography Radiol Med (Torino) 106 59–65

    Google Scholar 

  8. SA Feig (2002) ArticleTitleBreast cancer screening: potential role of computer-aided detection (CAD) Technol Cancer Res Treat 1 127–131 Occurrence Handle12622519

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Pamilo M, Raulisto L, Dean P: An evaluation of computer-assisted detection (CAD) performance on screen detected breast cancers. 89th Assembly of the Radiological Society of Northern America 2003, RSNA 2003. Radiology Suppl. 1:690, 2003

  10. F Winsberg M Elkin J Macy V Bordaz W Weymouth (1967) ArticleTitleDetection of radiographic abnormalities in mammograms by means of optical scanning and computer analysis Radiology 89 211–215

    Google Scholar 

  11. M Funovics S Schamp B Lackner P Wunderbaldinger G Lechner G Wolf (1998) ArticleTitleComputerassistierte Diagnose in der Mammographie: das R2 ImageChecker-System in der Detektion spikulierter Läsionen Wien Med Wochenschr 148 321–324 Occurrence Handle9816642

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. A Malich D Vogel M Facius et al. (2003) ArticleTitleEvaluation einer möglichen erweiterten Anwendungsoption eines CAD-Systems als primäres Diagnostikum zum Ausschluß maligner Mikrokalzifikationen Rofo, Fortschr Geb Rontgenstrahlen Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr 175 1225–1231

    Google Scholar 

  13. ST Quek CH Thng JB Khoo WL Koh (2003) ArticleTitleRadiologists’ detection of mammographic abnormalities with and without a computer-aided detection system Australas Radiol 47 257–260 Occurrence Handle10.1046/j.1440-1673.2003.01173.x Occurrence Handle12890245

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. A Malich C Marx M Facius T Boehm M Fleck WA Kaiser (2001) ArticleTitleTumour detection rate of a new commercially available computer-aided detection (CAD) system Eur Radiol 12 2454–2459 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s003300101079

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. C Marx A Malich M Facius et al. (2004) ArticleTitleComparison of mammographically based diagnosis with and without using of CAD using a double-blinded protocol Eur J Radiol 51 66–72 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0720-048X(03)00144-X Occurrence Handle15186887

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. RL Birdwell DM Ikeda KF O’Shaughnessy EA Sickles (2001) ArticleTitleMammographic characteristics of 115 missed cancers later detected with screening mammography and the potential utility of computer-aided detection Radiology 219 192–202 Occurrence Handle11274556

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. A Malich C Marx M Facius et al. (2004) ArticleTitleValue of computer aided detection (CAD) of breast cancers on mammograms, which were not detected by radiologists. Accepted at ECR 2004 Eur Radiol S1–14 278

    Google Scholar 

  18. T Ehrenstein PP Kenzel J Hadijuana et al. (2000) ArticleTitleComputer assisted diagnosis in mammography: evaluation of an expert system Eur Radiol 10 IssueIDSupplement 117

    Google Scholar 

  19. C Marx B Schütze M Fleck K O’Shaughnessy WA Kaiser (1997) ArticleTitleComputer aided diagnosis in mammography Eur Radiol 7 IssueIDSuppl 82 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s003300050115 Occurrence Handle9000404

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Y Jiang RM Nishikawa RA Schmidt CE Metz K Doi (1999) ArticleTitleComparison of independent double reading and computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) for the diagnosis of breast lesions Radiology 213 IssueIDSuppl 323

    Google Scholar 

  21. A Malich D Sauner C Marx M Facius T Boehm M Fleck SOR Pfleiderer WA Kaiser (2003) ArticleTitleInfluence of size histology on tumour detection rate of a computer-aided detection (CAD)-system Radiology 228 851–856 Occurrence Handle12869683

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. WT Ho PWT Lam (2003) ArticleTitleClinical performance of computer-assisted detection (CAD) system in detecting carcinoma in breast of different densities Clin Radiol 58 133–136 Occurrence Handle10.1053/crad.2002.1131 Occurrence Handle12623042

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. I Leconte C Feger C Galant M Berliere BV Berg W D’Hoore B Maldague (2003) ArticleTitleMammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: the importance of radiologic breast density Am J Roentgenol 180 1675–1679

    Google Scholar 

  24. A Malich MG Freesmeyer A Petrovitch SO Pfleiderer D Fischer C Marx WA Kaiser (2004) ArticleTitleClinical Impact of an improved mammographic computer-aided detection (CAD)-system in the detection of breast masses. Accepted at ECR 2004 Eur Radiol S1–14 215

    Google Scholar 

  25. YH Chang B Zheng D Gur (1994) ArticleTitleComputer-aided detection of clustered microcalcifications on digitized mammograms: a robustness experiment Acad Radiol 4 415–418

    Google Scholar 

  26. RF Brem JM Schoonjans J Hoffmeister S Raza JK Baum (2000) ArticleTitleEvaluation of breast cancer with a computer-aided detection system by mammographic appearance, histology and lesion size Radiology 217 IssueIDSupplement 400

    Google Scholar 

  27. LJ Warren Burhenne SA Wood CJ D’Orsi et al. (2000) ArticleTitlePotential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography Radiology 215 554–562 Occurrence Handle10796939

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. JW Hoffmeister SK Rogers MP Simio ParticleDe et al. (2002) ArticleTitleDetermining efficacy of mammographic CAD systems J Digit Imaging 15 IssueIDSuppl 1 198–200 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s10278-002-5080-3 Occurrence Handle12105727

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. RM Nishikawa ML Giger K Doi et al. (1994) ArticleTitleEffect of case selection on the performance of computer-aided detection schemes Med Phys 21 265–269 Occurrence Handle10.1118/1.597287 Occurrence Handle8177159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. RF Brem J Baum M Lechner S Kaplan S Souders LG Naul J Hoffmeister (2003) ArticleTitleImprovement in sensitivity of screening mammography with computer-aided detection: a multiinstitutional trial Am J Roentgenol 181 687–693

    Google Scholar 

  31. TW Freer MJ Ulissey (2001) ArticleTitleScreening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center Radiology 220 781–786 Occurrence Handle11526282

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Bachstr. 18, 7740, Jena, Germany

    Ansgar Malich M.D., Dorothee R. Fischer M.D., Mirjam Facius M.D., Alexander Petrovitch M.D., Joachim Boettcher M.D., Christiane Marx M.D., Andreas Hansch M.D. & Werner A. Kaiser M.D.

Authors
  1. Ansgar Malich M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dorothee R. Fischer M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mirjam Facius M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alexander Petrovitch M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Joachim Boettcher M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Christiane Marx M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Andreas Hansch M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Werner A. Kaiser M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ansgar Malich M.D..

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Malich, A., Fischer, D.R., Facius, M. et al. Effect of Breast Density on Computer Aided Detection. J Digit Imaging 18, 227–233 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-004-1047-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-004-1047-x

Key words

Search

Navigation