Performance of breast ultrasound computer-aided diagnosis: dependence on image selection.
OBJECTIVE
The automated classification of sonographic breast lesions is generally accomplished by extracting and quantifying various features from the lesions. The selection of images to be analyzed, however, is usually left to the radiologist. Here we present an analysis of the effect that image selection can have on the performance of a breast ultrasound computer-aided diagnosis system.


METHODS
A database of 344 different sonographic lesions was analyzed for this study (219 cysts/benign processes, 125 malignant lesions). The database was collected in an institutional review board-approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant manner. Three different image selection protocols were used in the automated classification of each lesion: all images, first image only, and randomly selected images. After image selection, two different protocols were used to classify the lesions: (a) the average feature values were input to the classifier or (b) the classifier outputs were averaged together. Both protocols generated an estimated probability of malignancy. Round-robin analysis was performed using a Bayesian neural network-based classifier. Receiver-operating characteristic analysis was used to evaluate the performance of each protocol. Significance testing of the performance differences was performed via 95% confidence intervals and noninferiority tests.


RESULTS
The differences in the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curves were never more than 0.02 for the primary protocols. Noninferiority was demonstrated between these protocols with respect to standard input techniques (all images selected and feature averaging).


CONCLUSIONS
We have proved that our automated lesion classification scheme is robust and can perform well when subjected to variations in user input.
Gruszauskas
Nicholas P
NP
Carl J. Vyborny Translational Laboratory for Breast Imaging Research, Department of Radiology, University of Chicago, 5841 S. Maryland Ave (MC 2026), Chicago, IL 60637, USA. ngrusz1@uchicago.edu
Drukker
Karen
K
Giger
Maryellen L
ML
Sennett
Charlene A
CA
Pesce
Lorenzo L
LL
D001943:Breast Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007090:Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods*; D015588:Observer Variation; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D016217:Ultrasonography, Mammary / Q000379:methods*
Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 2003 Aug;17(4):483-90
12914552
Radiology. 2003 Oct;229(1):3-8
14519861
Acad Radiol. 2007 Jul;14(7):814-29
17574132
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2001 Sep;20(9):886-99
11585206
Med Decis Making. 1995 Oct-Dec;15(4):358-66
8544679
JAMA. 2005 Mar 9;293(10):1245-56
15755947
Radiology. 2006 Jun;239(3):693-702
16641344
Radiology. 2004 Dec;233(3):830-49
15486214
Med Phys. 2002 Feb;29(2):157-64
11865987
Science. 2008 Jan 25;319(5862):435
18218889
Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2006 Aug;27(4):273-83
16915996
Radiology. 2006 Aug;240(2):357-68
16864666
J Math Psychol. 1999 Mar;43(1):1-33
10069933
Med Phys. 2005 Nov;32(11):3329-38
16372412
Surg Clin North Am. 2004 Aug;84(4):1001-34, v-vi
15261751
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2001 Dec;20(12):1285-92
11811828
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 Oct 5;97(19):1407-27
16204691
Radiology. 1990 Nov;177(2):305-11
2217759
Radiology. 2000 Apr;215(1):1-16
10751459
JAMA. 2006 Mar 8;295(10):1152-60
16522836
Acad Radiol. 2004 Mar;11(3):272-80
15035517
Med Phys. 2001 Aug;28(8):1652-9
11548934