View in EDS PDF Full Text

Dedicated computer-aided detection software for automated 3D breast ultrasound; an efficient tool for the radiologist in supplemental screening of women with dense breasts.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Dedicated computer-aided detection software for automated 3D breast ultrasound; an efficient tool for the radiologist in supplemental screening of women with dense breasts.
Authors: van Zelst, Jan C. M.1 jan.vanzelst@radboudumc.nl, Tan, Tao1, Clauser, Paola2, Domingo, Angels3, Dorrius, Monique D.4, Drieling, Daniel5, Golatta, Michael6, Gras, Francisca3, de Jong, Mathijn7, Pijnappel, Ruud8, Rutten, Matthieu J. C. M.7, Karssemeijer, Nico1, Mann, Ritse M.1
Source: European Radiology. Jul2018, Vol. 28 Issue 7, p2996-3006. 11p. 1 Diagram, 4 Charts, 3 Graphs.
Subjects: Computer-aided software engineering, Breast ultrasound, Radiologists, Mammograms, Computer-assisted image analysis (Medicine)
Abstract: Objectives: To determine the effect of computer-aided-detection (CAD) software for automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) on reading time (RT) and performance in screening for breast cancer.Material and Methods: Unilateral ABUS examinations of 120 women with dense breasts were randomly selected from a multi-institutional archive of cases including 30 malignant (20/30 mammography-occult), 30 benign, and 60 normal cases with histopathological verification or ≥ 2 years of negative follow-up. Eight radiologists read once with (CAD-ABUS) and once without CAD (ABUS) with > 8 weeks between reading sessions. Readers provided a BI-RADS score and a level of suspiciousness (0-100). RT, sensitivity, specificity, PPV and area under the curve (AUC) were compared.Results: Average RT was significantly shorter using CAD-ABUS (133.4 s/case, 95% CI 129.2-137.6) compared with ABUS (158.3 s/case, 95% CI 153.0-163.3) (p < 0.001). Sensitivity was 0.84 for CAD-ABUS (95% CI 0.79-0.89) and ABUS (95% CI 0.78-0.88) (p = 0.90). Three out of eight readers showed significantly higher specificity using CAD. Pooled specificity (0.71, 95% CI 0.68-0.75 vs. 0.67, 95% CI 0.64-0.70, p = 0.08) and PPV (0.50, 95% CI 0.45-0.55 vs. 0.44, 95% CI 0.39-0.49, p = 0.07) were higher in CAD-ABUS vs. ABUS, respectively, albeit not significantly. Pooled AUC for CAD-ABUS was comparable with ABUS (0.82 vs. 0.83, p = 0.53, respectively).Conclusion: CAD software for ABUS may decrease the time needed to screen for breast cancer without compromising the screening performance of radiologists.Key Points: • ABUS with CAD software may speed up reading time without compromising radiologists' accuracy. • CAD software for ABUS might prevent non-detection of malignant breast lesions by radiologists. • Radiologists reading ABUS with CAD software might improve their specificity without losing sensitivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of European Radiology is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Engineering Source
Description
Abstract:<bold>Objectives: </bold>To determine the effect of computer-aided-detection (CAD) software for automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) on reading time (RT) and performance in screening for breast cancer.<bold>Material and Methods: </bold>Unilateral ABUS examinations of 120 women with dense breasts were randomly selected from a multi-institutional archive of cases including 30 malignant (20/30 mammography-occult), 30 benign, and 60 normal cases with histopathological verification or ≥ 2 years of negative follow-up. Eight radiologists read once with (CAD-ABUS) and once without CAD (ABUS) with > 8 weeks between reading sessions. Readers provided a BI-RADS score and a level of suspiciousness (0-100). RT, sensitivity, specificity, PPV and area under the curve (AUC) were compared.<bold>Results: </bold>Average RT was significantly shorter using CAD-ABUS (133.4 s/case, 95% CI 129.2-137.6) compared with ABUS (158.3 s/case, 95% CI 153.0-163.3) (p < 0.001). Sensitivity was 0.84 for CAD-ABUS (95% CI 0.79-0.89) and ABUS (95% CI 0.78-0.88) (p = 0.90). Three out of eight readers showed significantly higher specificity using CAD. Pooled specificity (0.71, 95% CI 0.68-0.75 vs. 0.67, 95% CI 0.64-0.70, p = 0.08) and PPV (0.50, 95% CI 0.45-0.55 vs. 0.44, 95% CI 0.39-0.49, p = 0.07) were higher in CAD-ABUS vs. ABUS, respectively, albeit not significantly. Pooled AUC for CAD-ABUS was comparable with ABUS (0.82 vs. 0.83, p = 0.53, respectively).<bold>Conclusion: </bold>CAD software for ABUS may decrease the time needed to screen for breast cancer without compromising the screening performance of radiologists.<bold>Key Points: </bold>• ABUS with CAD software may speed up reading time without compromising radiologists' accuracy. • CAD software for ABUS might prevent non-detection of malignant breast lesions by radiologists. • Radiologists reading ABUS with CAD software might improve their specificity without losing sensitivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:09387994
DOI:10.1007/s00330-017-5280-3