Robustness of computerized lesion detection and classification scheme across different breast US platforms.

PURPOSE To evaluate the performance of a computerized detection and diagnosis method with breast ultrasonographic (US) images obtained with US equipment from two different manufacturers. MATERIALS AND METHODS Two independent clinical breast US databases were used in this performance study. Data collection and database use were HIPAA-compliant and followed institutional review board-approved protocols, with waiver of informed consent. One database consisted of 1740 images obtained in 458 women with Philips US equipment. The other database consisted of 151 images obtained in 151 women with Siemens US equipment. The testing protocols included independent testing and round-robin analysis. The computerized scheme detects potential lesions, calculates imaging features for all candidate lesions, and subsequently classifies candidate lesions into different categories. Two separate classification tasks were evaluated: distinction between all actual lesions and false-positive detections and distinction between actual cancers and all other detected lesion candidates. Statistical analysis was performed by using both receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and free-response ROC methods. RESULTS For the distinction between all actual lesions and false-positive detections, area under the ROC curve (A(z)) values ranged between 0.87 and 0.95 for different testing protocols. In two instances, the difference in performance between databases was significant (P < .01), but it was shown that this was due to the difference in size of the databases. In the distinction of cancer from all other detections, the A(z) values ranged between 0.80 and 0.86. No statistically significant difference was found among the different testing protocols in this instance. CONCLUSION These results indicate that the performance of this fully automated computerized lesion detection and classification method, which demonstrated robustness over the different US equipment used, is promising.

[1]  Susan M. Schultz,et al.  Computer‐Based Margin Analysis of Breast Sonography for Differentiating Malignant and Benign Masses , 2004, Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

[2]  S. Feig,et al.  Effect of service screening mammography on population mortality from breast carcinoma , 2002, Cancer.

[3]  L. Tabár,et al.  Beyond randomized controlled trials , 2001, Cancer.

[4]  Nico Karssemeijer,et al.  Computer-aided detection versus independent double reading of masses on mammograms. , 2003, Radiology.

[5]  T. M. Kolb,et al.  Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. , 2002, Radiology.

[6]  Karen Drukker,et al.  Computerized detection and classification of lesions on breast ultrasound , 2003, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[7]  M. Giger,et al.  Computerized lesion detection on breast ultrasound. , 2002, Medical physics.

[8]  Maryellen L. Giger,et al.  Ideal observer approximation using Bayesian classification neural networks , 2001, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[9]  Stuart S Kaplan,et al.  Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. , 2001, Radiology.

[10]  Lubomir M. Hadjiiski,et al.  Computerized characterization of breast masses on three-dimensional ultrasound volumes. , 2004, Medical physics.

[11]  S. Goldenberg,et al.  Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound. A retrospective review , 1995, Cancer.

[12]  K. Kerlikowske,et al.  Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. , 1996, JAMA.

[13]  C. Metz.  Basic principles of ROC analysis. , 1978, Seminars in nuclear medicine.

[14]  P. Dempsey,et al.  Breast Sonography: Historical Perspective, Clinical Application, and Image Interpretation , 1988 .

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

[16]  C A Roe,et al.  Statistical Comparison of Two ROC-curve Estimates Obtained from Partially-paired Datasets , 1998, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[17]  D Cavouras,et al.  Development of the cubic least squares mapping linear-kernel support vector machine classifier for improving the characterization of breast lesions on ultrasound. , 2004, Computerized medical imaging and graphics : the official journal of the Computerized Medical Imaging Society.

[18]  S. Woolf,et al.  Breast Cancer Screening: A Summary of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force , 2002, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[19]  J W Sayre,et al.  Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation. , 1999, Radiology.

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

[21]  C. Metz,et al.  Maximum likelihood estimation of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves from continuously-distributed data. , 1998, Statistics in medicine.

[22]  W. Berg,et al.  Multicentric and multifocal cancer: whole-breast US in preoperative evaluation. , 2000, Radiology.

[23]  John F. Hamilton,et al.  A Free Response Approach To The Measurement And Characterization Of Radiographic Observer Performance , 1977, Other Conferences.

[24]  S. Holm.  A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedure , 1979 .

[25]  Hee Chan Kim,et al.  Computer-aided diagnosis of solid breast nodules: use of an artificial neural network based on multiple sonographic features , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[26]  M. Giger,et al.  Computerized detection and classification of cancer on breast ultrasound. , 2004, Academic radiology.

[27]  L. Garfinkel,et al.  Twenty‐year follow‐up of the breast cancers diagnosed during the Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Project , 1997, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[28]  M. Giger,et al.  Computerized diagnosis of breast lesions on ultrasound. , 2002, Medical physics.

[29]  V. Jackson,et al.  Automated breast sonography using a 7.5-MHz PVDF transducer: preliminary clinical evaluation. Work in progress. , 1986, Radiology.

[30]  W. Buchberger,et al.  Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions: detection and classification with high-resolution sonography. , 2000, Seminars in ultrasound, CT, and MR.

[31]  T. M. Kolb,et al.  Occult cancer in women with dense breasts: detection with screening US--diagnostic yield and tumor characteristics. , 1998, Radiology.

[32]  M L Giger,et al.  Feature selection with limited datasets. , 1999, Medical physics.

[33]  M. Giger,et al.  Automatic segmentation of breast lesions on ultrasound. , 2001, Medical physics.

[34]  L. Tabár,et al.  The Swedish Two-County Trial twenty years later. Updated mortality results and new insights from long-term follow-up. , 2000, Radiologic clinics of North America.