Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 5/2019

01-05-2019 | Breast

Decrease in interpretation time for both novice and experienced readers using a concurrent computer-aided detection system for digital breast tomosynthesis

Authors: Eun Young Chae, Hak Hee Kim, Ji-wook Jeong, Seung-Hoon Chae, Sooyeul Lee, Young-Wook Choi

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 5/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the diagnostic performance and interpretation time of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) for both novice and experienced readers with and without using a computer-aided detection (CAD) system for concurrent read.

Methods

CAD system was developed for concurrent read in DBT interpretation. In this observer performance study, we used an enriched sample of 100 DBT cases including 70 with and 30 without breast cancers. Image interpretation was performed by four radiologists with different experience levels (two experienced and two novice). Each reader completed two reading sessions (at a minimum 2-month interval), once with and once without CAD. Three different rating scales were used to record each reader’s interpretation. Reader performance with and without CAD was reported and compared for each radiologist. Reading time for each case was also recorded.

Results

Average area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values for BI-RADS scale on using CAD were 0.778 and 0.776 without using CAD, demonstrating no statistically significant differences. Results were consistent when the probability of malignancy and percentage probability of malignancy scales were used. Reading times per case were 72.07 s and 62.03 s (SD, 37.54 s vs 34.38 s) without and with CAD, respectively. The average difference in reading time on using CAD was a statistically significant decrease of 10.04 ± 1.85 s, providing 14% decrease in time. The time-reducing effect was consistently observed in both novice and experienced readers.

Conclusion

DBT combined with CAD reduced interpretation time without diagnostic performance loss to novice and experienced readers.

Key Points

• The use of a concurrent DBT-CAD system shortened interpretation time.
• The shortened interpretation time with DBT-CAD did not come at a cost to diagnostic performance to novice or experienced readers.
• The concurrent DBT-CAD system improved the efficiency of DBT interpretation.
Literature
1.
Tabár L, Vitak B, Chen HH, Yen MF, Duffy SW, Smith RA (2001) Beyond randomized controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality. Cancer 91:1724–1731CrossRefPubMed
2.
Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening (2012) The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet 380:1778–1786
3.
Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ et al (2007) Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 356:227–236CrossRef
4.
Harvey JA, Bovbjerg VE (2004) Quantitative assessment of mammographic breast density: relationship with breast cancer risk. Radiology 230:29–41CrossRefPubMed
5.
Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH (2002) 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. Radiology 225:165–175CrossRefPubMed
6.
Chiu SY, Duffy S, Yen AM, Tabar L, Smith RA, Chen HH (2010) Effect of baseline breast density on breast cancer incidence, stage, mortality, and screening parameters: 25-year follow-up of a Swedish mammographic screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 19:1219–1228CrossRefPubMed
7.
Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V (1996) Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA 276:33–38CrossRefPubMed
8.
Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013) Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration. Eur Radiol 23:2061–2071CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013) Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 267:47–56CrossRefPubMed
10.
Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D et al (2013) Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 14:583–589CrossRefPubMed
11.
Lång K, Andersson I, Rosso A, Tingberg A, Timberg P, Zackrisson S (2016) Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study. Eur Radiol 26:184–190CrossRefPubMed
12.
Dang PA, Freer PE, Humphrey KL, Halpern EF, Rafferty EA (2014) Addition of tomosynthesis to conventional digital mammography: effect on image interpretation time of screening examinations. Radiology 270:49–56CrossRefPubMed
13.
Benedikt RA, Boatsman JE, Swann CA, Kirkpatrick AD, Toledano AY (2018) Concurrent computer-aided detection improves reading time of digital breast tomosynthesis and maintains interpretation performance in a multireader multicase study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 210:685–694CrossRefPubMed
14.
Balleyguier C, Arfi-Rouche J, Levy L et al (2017) Improving digital breast tomosynthesis reading time: a pilot multi-reader, multi-case study using concurrent computer-aided detection (CAD). Eur J Radiol 97:83–89CrossRefPubMed
15.
Duda RO, Hart PE (1972) Use of the Hough transformation to detect lines and curves in pictures. Commun ACM 15:11–15CrossRef
16.
Ballard DH (1981) Generalizing the Hough transform to detect arbitrary shapes. Pattern Recogn 13:111–122CrossRef
17.
He K, Zhang X, Ren S, Sun J (2016) Deep residual learning for image recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, p 770–778
18.
Jeong JW, Chae SH, Cho YL et al (2017) A deep convolutional neural network based false positive reduction in mass detection algorithm on digital breast tomosynthesis images. Int J CARS 12(Suppl 1):S273
19.
Choi WJ, Kim HH, Lee SY et al (2016) A comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for the detection of breast cancers. Breast Cancer 23:886–892CrossRefPubMed
20.
Chae EY, Kim HH, Cha JH, Shin HJ, Choi WJ (2016) Detection and characterization of breast lesions in a selective diagnostic population: diagnostic accuracy study for comparison between one-view digital breast tomosynthesis and two-view full-field digital mammography. Br J Radiol 89:20150743CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM et al (2009) Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:586–591CrossRefPubMed
22.
Poplack SP, Tosteson TD, Kogel CA, Nagy HM (2007) Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:616–623CrossRefPubMed
23.
24.
Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE et al (2013) Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology 266:104–113CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Hooley RJ, Durand MA, Philpotts LE (2017) Advances in digital breast tomosynthesis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 208:256–266CrossRefPubMed
26.
27.
Tucker L, Gilbert FJ, Astley SM et al (2017) Does reader performance with digital breast tomosynthesis vary according to experience with two-dimensional mammography? Radiology 283:371–380CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Decrease in interpretation time for both novice and experienced readers using a concurrent computer-aided detection system for digital breast tomosynthesis
Authors
Eun Young Chae
Hak Hee Kim
Ji-wook Jeong
Seung-Hoon Chae
Sooyeul Lee
Young-Wook Choi
Publication date
01-05-2019
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 5/2019
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5886-0

Other articles of this Issue 5/2019

European Radiology 5/2019 Go to the issue

Hepatobiliary-Pancreas

New MRI features improve subtype classification of hepatocellular adenoma

Forensic Medicine

Forensic age estimation for pelvic X-ray images using deep learning

Neuro

Wavelet-based reconstruction of dynamic susceptibility MR-perfusion: a new method to visualize hypervascular brain tumors

Magnetic Resonance

Comparison of lung imaging using three-dimensional ultrashort echo time and zero echo time sequences: preliminary study

Neuro

Impact of guidelines for the management of minor head injury on the utilization and diagnostic yield of CT over two decades, using natural language processing in a large dataset

Interventional

Volumetric 3D assessment of ablation zones after thermal ablation of colorectal liver metastases to improve prediction of local tumor progression