Improvement in radiologists' characterization of malignant and benign breast masses on serial mammograms with computer-aided diagnosis: an ROC study.

PURPOSE To evaluate the effects of computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) on radiologists' characterization of masses on serial mammograms. MATERIALS AND METHODS Two hundred fifty-three temporal image pairs (138 malignant and 115 benign) obtained from 96 patients who had masses on serial mammograms were evaluated. The temporal pairs were formed by matching masses of the same view from two different examinations. Eight radiologists and two breast imaging fellows assessed the temporal pairs with and without computer aid. The classification of accuracy was quantified by using the area under receiver operating characteristic curve (A(z)). The statistical significance of the difference in A(z) between the different reading conditions was estimated with the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz method for analysis of multireader multicase data and with the Student paired t test for analysis of observer-specific paired data. RESULTS The average A(z) for radiologists' estimates of the likelihood of malignancy was 0.79 without CAD and improved to 0.84 with CAD. The improvement was statistically significant (P =.005). The corresponding average partial area index was 0.25 without CAD and improved to 0.37 with CAD. The improvement was also statistically significant (P =.005). On the basis of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System assessments, it was estimated that with CAD, each radiologist, on average, reduced 0.7% (0.8 of 115) of unnecessary biopsies and correctly recommended 5.7% (7.8 of 138) of additional biopsies. CONCLUSION CAD based on analysis of interval changes can significantly increase radiologists' accuracy in classification of masses and thereby may be useful in improving correct biopsy recommendations.

[1]  Elizabeth S Burnside,et al.  Differential value of comparison with previous examinations in diagnostic versus screening mammography. , 2002, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[2]  M. Giger,et al.  Breast cancer: effectiveness of computer-aided diagnosis observer study with independent database of mammograms. , 2002, Radiology.

[3]  Berkman Sahiner,et al.  Classification of malignant and benign masses based on hybrid ART2LDA approach , 1999, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

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

[5]  C. Metz,et al.  A receiver operating characteristic partial area index for highly sensitive diagnostic tests. , 1996, Radiology.

[6]  D. Kopans.  The positive predictive value of mammography. , 1992, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[7]  Kunio Doi,et al.  Independent versus sequential reading in ROC studies of computer-assist modalities: analysis of components of variance. , 2002, Academic radiology.

[8]  L. Tabár,et al.  The control of breast cancer through mammography screening. What is the evidence? , 1987, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[9]  K. Doi,et al.  Effect of a computer-aided diagnosis scheme on radiologists' performance in detection of lung nodules on radiographs. , 1996, Radiology.

[10]  Adler Dd,et al.  Mammographic biopsy recommendations. , 1992 .

[11]  N. Petrick,et al.  Computerized characterization of masses on mammograms: the rubber band straightening transform and texture analysis. , 1998, Medical physics.

[12]  Martin D. Fox,et al.  Classifying mammographic lesions using computerized image analysis , 1993, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[13]  Mary M. Galloway,et al.  Texture analysis using gray level run lengths , 1974 .

[14]  Mei-Ling Ting Lee,et al.  The average area under correlated receiver operating characteristic curves : a nonparametric approach based on generalized two-sample Wilcoxon statistics , 2001 .

[15]  Taylor Murray,et al.  Cancer Statistics, 2001 , 2001, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[16]  L W Bassett,et al.  Obtaining previous mammograms for comparison: usefulness and costs. , 1994, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[17]  K. Berbaum,et al.  Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. , 1992, Investigative radiology.

[18]  E. Sickles.  Mammographic features of 300 consecutive nonpalpable breast cancers. , 1986, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[19]  H P Chan,et al.  Combined adaptive enhancement and region-growing segmentation of breast masses on digitized mammograms. , 1999, Medical physics.

[20]  K L Lam,et al.  Computerized classification of malignant and benign microcalcifications on mammograms: texture analysis using an artificial neural network. , 1997, Physics in medicine and biology.

[21]  H P Chan,et al.  Analysis of temporal changes of mammographic features: computer-aided classification of malignant and benign breast masses. , 2001, Medical physics.

[22]  N A Obuchowski,et al.  Nonparametric analysis of clustered ROC curve data. , 1997, Biometrics.

[23]  E. Sickles.  Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. , 1991, Radiology.

[24]  N. Petrick,et al.  Improvement of radiologists' characterization of mammographic masses by using computer-aided diagnosis: an ROC study. , 1999, Radiology.

[25]  C. Floyd,et al.  A neural network approach to breast cancer diagnosis as a constraint satisfaction problem. , 2001, Medical physics.

[26]  M. Giger,et al.  Improving breast cancer diagnosis with computer-aided diagnosis. , 1999, Academic radiology.