A Comparison of Logistic Regression Analysis and an Artificial Neural Network Using the BI-RADS Lexicon for Ultrasonography in Conjunction with Introbserver Variability

To determine which Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) descriptors for ultrasound are predictors for breast cancer using logistic regression (LR) analysis in conjunction with interobserver variability between breast radiologists, and to compare the performance of artificial neural network (ANN) and LR models in differentiation of benign and malignant breast masses. Five breast radiologists retrospectively reviewed 140 breast masses and described each lesion using BI-RADS lexicon and categorized final assessments. Interobserver agreements between the observers were measured by kappa statistics. The radiologists’ responses for BI-RADS were pooled. The data were divided randomly into train (n = 70) and test sets (n = 70). Using train set, optimal independent variables were determined by using LR analysis with forward stepwise selection. The LR and ANN models were constructed with the optimal independent variables and the biopsy results as dependent variable. Performances of the models and radiologists were evaluated on the test set using receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Among BI-RADS descriptors, margin and boundary were determined as the predictors according to stepwise LR showing moderate interobserver agreement. Area under the ROC curves (AUC) for both of LR and ANN were 0.87 (95% CI, 0.77–0.94). AUCs for the five radiologists ranged 0.79–0.91. There was no significant difference in AUC values among the LR, ANN, and radiologists (p > 0.05). Margin and boundary were found as statistically significant predictors with good interobserver agreement. Use of the LR and ANN showed similar performance to that of the radiologists for differentiation of benign and malignant breast masses.

[1]  P. Dempsey,et al.  The History of Breast Ultrasound , 2004, Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

[2]  Roland Felix,et al.  Role of power Doppler techniques and ultrasound contrast enhancement in the differential diagnosis of focal breast lesions , 2002, European Radiology.

[3]  C. Floyd,et al.  Breast cancer: prediction with artificial neural network based on BI-RADS standardized lexicon. , 1995, Radiology.

[4]  Mary Scott Soo,et al.  Breast US: assessment of technical quality and image interpretation. , 2002, Radiology.

[5]  R. Birdwell,et al.  Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Lexicon for US: Interobserver Agreement for Assessment of Breast Masses , 2010 .

[6]  Tejas Mehta,et al.  Current uses of ultrasound in the evaluation of the breast. , 2003, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[7]  Handel E. Reynolds,et al.  Sonography of the breast. , 1996, Seminars in ultrasound, CT, and MR.

[8]  Y. Chou,et al.  Stepwise logistic regression analysis of tumor contour features for breast ultrasound diagnosis. , 2001, Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology.

[9]  J V Tu,et al.  Advantages and disadvantages of using artificial neural networks versus logistic regression for predicting medical outcomes. , 1996, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[10]  Rebecca S Lewis,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. , 2004, Radiology.

[11]  M S Soo,et al.  Artifacts and pitfalls in sonographic imaging of the breast. , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[12]  M. Mainiero,et al.  BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value. , 2006, Radiology.

[13]  Oguzhan Alagoz,et al.  Informatics in radiology: comparison of logistic regression and artificial neural network models in breast cancer risk estimation. , 2010, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[14]  C. Sehgal,et al.  Comparative analysis of logistic regression and artificial neural network for computer-aided diagnosis of breast masses. , 2005, Academic radiology.

[15]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[16]  E. Mendelson,et al.  Problem-solving ultrasound. , 2004, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[17]  Y. Wu,et al.  Artificial neural networks in mammography: application to decision making in the diagnosis of breast cancer. , 1993, Radiology.

[18]  A. Stavros,et al.  Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. , 1995, Radiology.

[19]  Sung Hun Kim,et al.  Observer Agreement Using the ACR Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS)-Ultrasound, First Edition (2003) , 2007, Korean journal of radiology.

[20]  J. Hanley,et al.  A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. , 1983, Radiology.

[21]  Ellen Kao,et al.  Breast imaging reporting and data system lexicon for US: interobserver agreement for assessment of breast masses. , 2009, Radiology.

[22]  Ki Keun Oh,et al.  Observer variability of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) for breast ultrasound. , 2008, European journal of radiology.

[23]  C. Floyd,et al.  Artificial neural network: improving the quality of breast biopsy recommendations. , 1996, Radiology.

[24]  C. Floyd,et al.  Breast imaging reporting and data system standardized mammography lexicon: observer variability in lesion description. , 1996, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[25]  Giorgio Rizzatto,et al.  Towards a more sophisticated use of breast ultrasound , 2001, European Radiology.

[26]  R Hecht-Nielsen,et al.  Replicator neural networks for universal optimal source coding. , 1995, Science.

[27]  J. Baker,et al.  BI-RADS for sonography: positive and negative predictive values of sonographic features. , 2005, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.