Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-07-2018 | Breast

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: Jan C. M. van Zelst, Tao Tan, Paola Clauser, Angels Domingo, Monique D. Dorrius, Daniel Drieling, Michael Golatta, Francisca Gras, Mathijn de Jong, Ruud Pijnappel, Matthieu J. C. M. Rutten, Nico Karssemeijer, Ritse M. Mann

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 7/2018

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.

Wanders JOP, Holland K, Veldhuis WB et al (2017) Volumetric breast density affects performance of digital screening mammography. Breast Cancer Res Treat 162:95–103CrossRefPubMed

Ohuchi N, Suzuki A, Sobue T et al (2016) Sensitivity and specificity of mammography and adjunctive ultrasonography to screen for breast cancer in the Japan Strategic Anti-cancer Randomized Trial (J-START): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Jan 23;387:341–348

Shen S, Zhou Y, Xu Y et al (2015) A multi-centre randomised trial comparing ultrasound vs mammography for screening breast cancer in high-risk Chinese women. Br J Cancer 112:998–1004CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB et al (2008) Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 299:2151–2163CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Bae MS, Moon WK, Chang JM et al (2014) Breast cancer detected with screening US: reasons for nondetection at mammography. Radiology 270:369–377CrossRefPubMed

Saadatmand S, Bretveld R, Siesling S, Tilanus-Linthorst MMA (2015) Influence of tumour stage at breast cancer detection on survival in modern times: population based study in 173 797 patients. BMJ Oct 6;351:h4901

Durand MA, Hooley RJ (2017) Implementation of whole-breast screening ultrasonography. Radiol Clin North Am 55:527–539CrossRefPubMed

Hooley RJ (2017) Breast density legislation and clinical evidence. Radiol Clin North Am 55:513–526CrossRefPubMed

The Austrian Breast Cancer Early Detection Programma. http://www.frueh-erkennen.at/. Accessed 25 June 2017

10.

Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB (2006) Operator dependence of physician-performed whole-breast US: lesion detection and characterization. Radiology 241:355–365CrossRefPubMed

11.

Brem RF, Tabár L, Duffy SW et al (2015) Assessing improvement in detection of breast cancer with three-dimensional automated breast US in women with dense breast tissue: The SomoInsight Study. Radiology 274:663–673CrossRefPubMed

12.

Wilczek B, Wilczek HE, Rasouliyan L, Leifland K (2016) Adding 3D automated breast ultrasound to mammography screening in women with heterogeneously and extremely dense breasts: Report from a hospital-based, high-volume, single-center breast cancer screening program. Eur J Radiol 85:1554–1563CrossRefPubMed

13.

Giuliano V, Giuliano C (2012) Improved breast cancer detection in asymptomatic women using 3D-automated breast ultrasound in mammographically dense breasts. Clin Imaging 37:480–486CrossRefPubMed

14.

Choi WJ, Cha JH, Kim HH et al (2014) Comparison of automated breast volume scanning and hand- held ultrasound in the detection of breast cancer: an analysis of 5,566 patient evaluations. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 15:9101–9105CrossRefPubMed

15.

Vourtsis A, Kachulis A (2017) The performance of 3D ABUS versus HHUS in the visualisation and BI-RADS characterisation of breast lesions in a large cohort of 1,886 women. Eur Radiol 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5011-9

16.

Kelly KM, Dean J, Comulada WS, Lee S-JJ (2010) Breast cancer detection using automated whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically dense breasts. Eur Radiol 20:734–742CrossRefPubMed

17.

Tan T, Mordang J-J, van Zelst J et al (2015) Computer-aided detection of breast cancers using Haar-like features in automated 3D breast ultrasound. Med Phys 42:1498–1504CrossRefPubMed

18.

Evans KK, Birdwell RL, Wolfe JM (2013) If you don’t find it often, you often don’t find it: why some cancers are missed in breast cancer screening. PLoS One 8:e64366CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Hillis SL, Berbaum KS, Metz CE (2008) Recent developments in the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz procedure for multireader ROC study analysis. Acad Radiol 15:647–661CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE (1992) Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis: Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Invest Radiol 27:723–731CrossRefPubMed

21.

Corsetti V, Houssami N, Ghirardi M et al (2011) Evidence of the effect of adjunct ultrasound screening in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: interval breast cancers at 1 year follow-up. Eur J Cancer 47:1021–1026CrossRefPubMed

22.

Song SE, Cho N, Chu A et al (2015) Undiagnosed breast cancer: features at supplemental screening US. Radiology 277:372–380CrossRefPubMed

23.

Van Zelst JCM, Platel B, Karssemeijer N, Mann RM (2015) Multiplanar reconstructions of 3D automated breast ultrasound improve lesion differentiation by radiologists. Acad Radiol. Dec;22:1489-1496

24.

Van Zelst JCM, Tan T, Platel B et al (2017) Improved cancer detection in automated breast ultrasound by radiologists using computer aided detection. Eur J Radiol 89:54–59CrossRefPubMed

25.

Skaane P, Gullien R, Eben EB et al (2015) Interpretation of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) with and without knowledge of mammography: a reader performance study. Acta Radiol 56:404–412CrossRefPubMed

26.

Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Strobel K et al (2014) Abbreviated breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): first postcontrast subtracted images and maximum-intensity projection-a novel approach to breast cancer screening with MRI. J Clin Oncol 32:2304–2310CrossRefPubMed

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: Jan C. M. van Zelst
Tao Tan
Paola Clauser
Angels Domingo
Monique D. Dorrius
Daniel Drieling
Michael Golatta
Francisca Gras
Mathijn de Jong
Ruud Pijnappel
Matthieu J. C. M. Rutten
Nico Karssemeijer
Ritse M. Mann
Publication date: 01-07-2018
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Radiology / Issue 7/2018
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5280-3

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

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

Abstract

Objectives

Material and methods

Results

Conclusion

Key Points

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Material and methods

Results

Conclusion

Key Points

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 7/2018

Endovascular interventional modalities for haemorrhage control in abnormal placental implantation deliveries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Accuracy and effectiveness of ultrasound-guided core-needle biopsy in the diagnosis of focal lesions in the salivary glands

Magnetic resonance post-contrast vascular hyperintensities at 3 T: a new highly sensitive sign of vascular occlusion in acute ischaemic stroke

Contrast-enhanced MRI after neoadjuvant chemotherapy of breast cancer: lesion-to-background parenchymal signal enhancement ratio for discriminating pathological complete response from minimal residual tumour

Detection of early cartilage damage: feasibility and potential of gagCEST imaging at 7T

Visual grading analysis of digital neonatal chest phantom X-ray images: Impact of detector type, dose and image processing on image quality