Academic Radiology
Volume 16, Issue 7 , Pages 810-818 , July 2009

Multi-modality CADx: ROC Study of the Effect on Radiologists' Accuracy in Characterizing Breast Masses on Mammograms and 3D Ultrasound Images

Received 2 June 2008 ,Accepted 10 January 2009.

References 

  1. Jemal A, Siegel J, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2007. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57:43–66
  2. Bassett LW, Hendrick RE, Bassford TL, et al. Quality determinants of mammography. Clinical Practice Guideline No. 13. AHCPR Publication No. 95–0632. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Public Health Service, US Department of Health and Human Services; 1994;
  3. Brown ML, Houn F, Sickles EA, et al. Screening mammography in community practice: positive predictive value of abnormal findings and yield of follow-up diagnostic procedures. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995;165:1373–1377
  4. Gur D, Wallace LP, Klym AH, et al. Trends in recall, biopsy, and positive biopsy rates for screening mammography in an academic practice. Radiology. 2005;235:396–401
  5. Huo ZM, Giger ML, Vyborny CJ, et al. Computerized classification of benign and malignant masses on digitized mammograms: a study of robustness. Acad Radiol. 2000;7:1077–1084
  6. Mudigonda NR, Rangayyan RM, Desautels JEL. Gradient and texture analysis for the classification of mammographic masses. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2000;19:1032–1043
  7. Leichter I, Fields S, Nirel R, et al. Improved mammographic interpretation of masses using computer-aided diagnosis. Eur Radiol. 2000;10:377–383
  8. Bilska-Wolak AO, Floyd CE, Nolte LW, et al. Application of likelihood ratio to classification of mammographic masses; performance comparison to case-based reasoning. Med Phys. 2003;30:949–958
  9. Varela C, Timp S, Karssemeijer N. Use of border information in the classification of mammographic masses. Phys Medic Biol. 2006;51:425–441
  10. Cheng HD, Shi XJ, Min R, et al. Approaches for automated detection and classification of masses in mammograms. Pattern Recognit. 2006;39:646–668
  11. Delogu P, Fantacci ME, Kasae P, et al. Characterization of mammographic masses using a gradient-based segmentation algorithm and a neural classifier. Comp Biol Med. 2007;37:1479–1491
  12. Shi J, Sahiner B, Chan HP, et al. Characterization of mammographic masses based on level set segmentation with new image features and patient information. Med Phys. 2008;35:280–290
  13. Chen DR, Chang RF, Huang YL. Computer-aided diagnosis applied to US of solid breast nodules by using neural networks. Radiology. 1999;213:407–412
  14. Dumane VA, Shankar PM, Piccoli CW, et al. Computer aided classification of masses in ultrasonic mammography. Med Phys. 2002;29:1968–1973
  15. Chen CM, Chou YH, Han KC, et al. Breast lesions on sonograms: computer-aided diagnosis with nearly setting-independent features and artificial neural networks. Radiology. 2003;226:504–514
  16. Horsch K, Giger ML, Vyborny CJ, et al. Performance of computer-aided diagnosis in the interpretation of lesions on breast sonography. Acad Radiol. 2004;11:272–280
  17. Joo S, Yang YS, Moon WK, et al. Computer-aided diagnosis of solid breast nodules: use of an artificial neural network based on multiple sonographic features. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2004;23:1292–1300
  18. Sahiner B, Chan HP, Roubidoux MA, et al. Computerized characterization of breast masses on 3-D ultrasound volumes. Med Phys. 2004;31:744–754
  19. Sehgal CM, Cary TW, Kangas SA, et al. Computer-based margin analysis of breast sonography for differentiating malignant and benign masses. J Ultrasound Med. 2004;23:1201–1209
  20. Shen WC, Chang RF, Moon WK, et al. Breast ultrasound computer-aided diagnosis using BI-RADS features. Acad Radiol. 2007;14:928–939
  21. Sahiner B, Chan HP, Hadjiiski LM, et al. Fusion of mammographic and sonographic computer-extracted features for improved characterization of breast masses. Proc 7th Int Workshop Digital Mammogr. 2004;199–202
  22. Drukker K, Horsch K, Giger ML. Multimodality computerized diagnosis of breast lesions using mammography and sonography. Acad Radiol. 2005;12:970–979
  23. Jesneck JL, Lo JY, Baker JA. Breast mass lesions: computer-aided diagnosis models with mammographic and sonographic descriptors. Radiology. 2007;244:390–398
  24. Chan HP, Sahiner B, Helvie MA, et al. Improvement of radiologists' characterization of mammographic masses by computer-aided diagnosis: an ROC study. Radiology. 1999;212:817–827
  25. Markey MK, Lo JY, Floyd CE. Differences between computer-aided diagnosis of breast masses and that of calcifications. Radiology. 2002;223:489–493
  26. Huo ZM, Giger ML, Vyborny CJ, et al. Breast cancer: effectiveness of computer-aided diagnosis—observer study with independent database of mammograms. Radiology. 2002;224:560–568
  27. Sahiner B, Chan HP, Roubidoux MA, et al. Computer-aided diagnosis of malignant and benign breast masses in 3d ultrasound volumes: effect on radiologists' accuracy. Radiology. 2007;242:716–724
  28. Horsch K, Giger ML, Vyborny CJ, et al. Classification of breast lesions with multimodality computer-aided diagnosis: observer study results on an independent clinical data set. Radiology. 2006;240:357–368
  29. Bhatti PT, LeCarpentier GL, Roubidoux MA, et al. Discrimination of sonographically detected breast masses using frequency shift color Doppler imaging in combination with age and gray scale criteria. J Ultrasound Med. 2001;20:343–350
  30. Sahiner B, Petrick N, Chan HP, et al. Computer-aided characterization of mammographic masses: accuracy of mass segmentation and its effects on characterization. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2001;20:1275–1284
  31. Hadjiiski LM, Sahiner B, Chan HP, et al. Analysis of temporal change of mammographic features: computer-aided classification of malignant and benign breast masses. Med Phys. 2001;28:2309–2317
  32. Sahiner B, Chan HP, Petrick N, et al. Improvement of mammographic mass characterization using spiculation measures and morphological features. Medi Phys. 2001;28:1455–1465
  33. Sahiner B, Chan HP, Petrick N, et al. Computerized characterization of masses on mammograms: the rubber band straightening transform and texture analysis. Med Phys. 1998;25:516–526
  34. Sahiner B, Chan HP, Roubidoux MA, et al. Computerized characterization of breast masses on 3-D ultrasound volumes. Med Phys. 2004;31:744–754
  35. American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas (BI-RADS Atlas). Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2003;
  36. Sickles EA. Nonpalpable, circumscribed, noncalcified solid breast masses: likelihood of malignancy based on lesion size and age of patient. Radiology. 1994;192:439–442
  37. Metz CE. ROC methodology in radiologic imaging. Invest Radiol. 1986;21:720–733
  38. McNeil BJ, Hanley JA. Statistical approaches to the analysis of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Med Decis Making. 1984;4:137–150
  39. Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE. ROC rating analysis: generalization to the population of readers and cases with the jackknife method. Invest Radiol. 1992;27:723–731
  40. Jiang Y, Metz CE, Nishikawa RM. A receiver operating characteristic partial area index for highly sensitive diagnostic tests. Radiology. 1996;201:745–750
  41. Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J. The elements of statistical learning. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2001;
  42. Sahiner B, Chan HP, Hadjiiski L. Classifier performance prediction for computer-aided diagnosis using a limited data set. Med Phys. 2008;35:1559–1570
  43. Gur D, Rockette HE, Armfield DR, et al. Prevalence effect in a laboratory environment. Radiology. 2003;228:10–14
  44. Gur D, Bandos AI, Fuhrman CR, et al. The prevalence effect in a laboratory environment: changing the confidence ratings. Acad Radiol. 2007;14:49–53
  45. Egglin TKP, Feinstein AR. Context bias–aproblem in diagnostic radiology. JAMA. 1996;276:1752–1755
  46. Gur D, Bandos AI, Cohen CS, et al. The “laboratory” effect: comparing radiologists' performance and variability during prospective clinical and laboratory mammography interpretations. Radiology. 2008;249:47–53

 Supported by USPHS grants CA118305, CA095153, and CA091713.

 The content of this paper is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funding agency

PII: S1076-6332(09)00039-7

doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2009.01.011

Academic Radiology
Volume 16, Issue 7 , Pages 810-818 , July 2009

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution