Interactive computer-aided diagnosis of breast masses: computerized selection of visually similar image sets from a reference library.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES The clinical utility of interactive computer-aided diagnosis (ICAD) systems depends on clinical relevance and visual similarity between the queried breast lesions and the ICAD-selected reference regions. The objective of this study is to develop and test a new ICAD scheme that aims improve visual similarity of ICAD-selected reference regions. MATERIALS AND METHODS A large and diverse reference library involving 3,000 regions of interests was established. For each queried breast mass lesion by the observer, the ICAD scheme segments the lesion, classifies its boundary spiculation level, and computes 14 image features representing the segmented lesion and its surrounding tissue background. A conditioned k-nearest neighbor algorithm is applied to select a set of the 25 most "similar" lesions from the reference library. After computing the mutual information between the queried lesion and each of these initially selected 25 lesions, the scheme displays the six reference lesions with the highest mutual information scores. To evaluate the automated selection process of the six "visually similar" lesions to the queried lesion, we conducted a two-alternative forced-choice observer preference study using 85 queried mass lesions. Two sets of reference lesions selected by one new automated ICAD scheme and the other previously reported scheme using a subjective rating method were randomly displayed on the left and right side of the queried lesion. Nine observers were asked to decide for each of the 85 queried lesions which one of the two reference sets was "more visually similar" to the queried lesion. RESULTS In classification of mass boundary spiculation levels, the overall agreement rate between the automated scheme and an observer is 58.8% (Kappa = 0.31). In observer preference study, the nine observers preferred on average the reference lesion sets selected by the automated scheme as being more visually similar than the set selected by the subjective rating approach in 53.2% of the queried lesions. The results were not significantly different for the two methods (P = .128). CONCLUSIONS This study suggests that using the new automated ICAD scheme, the interobserver variability related issues can thus be avoided. Furthermore, the new scheme maintains the similar performance level as the previous scheme using the subjective rating method that can select reference sets that are significantly more visually similar (P < .05) than when using traditional ICAD schemes in which the mass boundary spiculation levels are not accurately detected and quantified.

[1]  K. Doi,et al.  Investigation of psychophysical measure for evaluation of similar images for mammographic masses: preliminary results. , 2005, Medical physics.

[2]  Max A. Viergever,et al.  Mutual-information-based registration of medical images: a survey , 2003, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[3]  Lubomir M. Hadjiiski,et al.  Improvement of mammographic mass characterization using spiculation meausures and morphological features. , 2001, Medical physics.

[4]  Jerry L. Prince,et al.  Generalized gradient vector flow external forces for active contours , 1998, Signal Process..

[5]  C. Vyborny,et al.  Breast cancer: importance of spiculation in computer-aided detection. , 2000, Radiology.

[6]  C. Floyd,et al.  Evaluation of information-theoretic similarity measures for content-based retrieval and detection of masses in mammograms. , 2006, Medical physics.

[7]  Y H Chang,et al.  Computerized detection of masses in digitized mammograms using single-image segmentation and a multilayer topographic feature analysis. , 1995, Academic radiology.

[8]  J. M. Pruneda,et al.  Computer-aided mammographic screening for spiculated lesions. , 1994, Radiology.

[9]  Maryellen L. Giger,et al.  Automated seeded lesion segmentation on digital mammograms , 1998, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[10]  Mathias Prokop,et al.  Flat-panel display (LCD) versus high-resolution gray-scale display (CRT) for chest radiography: an observer preference study. , 2005, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[11]  David Gur,et al.  A method to improve visual similarity of breast masses for an interactive computer-aided diagnosis environment. , 2005, Medical physics.

[12]  Anthony J. Yezzi,et al.  A geometric snake model for segmentation of medical imagery , 1997, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[13]  T. Freer,et al.  Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. , 2001, Radiology.

[14]  Rong Jin,et al.  Learning distance metrics for interactive search-assisted diagnosis of mammograms , 2007, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[15]  Martin P DeSimio,et al.  A computer-aided detection system for the evaluation of breast cancer by mammographic appearance and lesion size. , 2005, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[16]  Y H Chang,et al.  Applying computer-assisted detection schemes to digitized mammograms after JPEG data compression: an assessment. , 2000, Academic radiology.

[17]  Rachel F Brem,et al.  Improvement in sensitivity of screening mammography with computer-aided detection: a multiinstitutional trial. , 2003, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[18]  Berkman Sahiner,et al.  Comparison of similarity measures for the task of template matching of masses on serial mammograms. , 2005, Medical physics.

[19]  David Gur,et al.  Evaluation of an interactive computer-aided diagnosis (ICAD) system for mammography: a pilot study , 2007, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[20]  David Gur,et al.  Mass margins spiculations: agreement between ratings by observers and a computer scheme , 2007, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[21]  Robert M. Nishikawa,et al.  Intelligent CAD workstation for breast imaging using similarity to known lesions and multiple visual prompt aids , 2002, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[22]  Laura M. Yarusso,et al.  Radial gradient-based segmentation of mammographic microcalcifications: observer evaluation and effect on CAD performance. , 2004, Medical physics.

[23]  C. Lehman,et al.  Testing the effect of computer-assisted detection on interpretive performance in screening mammography. , 2006, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[24]  David Gur,et al.  Actual versus intended use of CAD systems in the clinical environment , 2006, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[25]  Mahadev Satyanarayanan,et al.  Diamond: A Storage Architecture for Early Discard in Interactive Search , 2004, FAST.

[26]  P. Taylor,et al.  Computer-aided detection in the United Kingdom National Breast Screening Programme: prospective study. , 2005, Radiology.

[27]  Thomas M. Cover,et al.  Elements of Information Theory , 2005 .

[28]  Priscilla J Slanetz,et al.  Prospective assessment of computer-aided detection in interpretation of screening mammography. , 2006, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[29]  Nico Karssemeijer,et al.  Detection of stellate distortions in mammograms , 1996, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[30]  David Gur,et al.  Computer-aided detection performance in mammographic examination of masses: assessment. , 2004, Radiology.

[31]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[32]  R A Clark,et al.  False-positive reduction in CAD mass detection using a competitive classification strategy. , 2001, Medical physics.

[33]  L. Tabár,et al.  Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography. , 2000, Radiology.

[34]  Rene Vargas-Voracek,et al.  Computer-assisted detection of mammographic masses: a template matching scheme based on mutual information. , 2003, Medical physics.

[35]  Guy Marchal,et al.  Multimodality image registration by maximization of mutual information , 1997, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[36]  Bernard R. Rosner,et al.  Fundamentals of Biostatistics. , 1992 .

[37]  C J D'Orsi,et al.  Computer-aided detection: there is no free lunch. , 2001, Radiology.