Computer-aided detection of masses in digital tomosynthesis mammography: comparison of three approaches.
The authors are developing a computer-aided detection (CAD) system for masses on digital breast tomosynthesis mammograms (DBT). Three approaches were evaluated in this study. In the first approach, mass candidate identification and feature analysis are performed in the reconstructed three-dimensional (3D) DBT volume. A mass likelihood score is estimated for each mass candidate using a linear discriminant analysis (LDA) classifier. Mass detection is determined by a decision threshold applied to the mass likelihood score. A free response receiver operating characteristic (FROC) curve that describes the detection sensitivity as a function of the number of false positives (FPs) per breast is generated by varying the decision threshold over a range. In the second approach, prescreening of mass candidate and feature analysis are first performed on the individual two-dimensional (2D) projection view (PV) images. A mass likelihood score is estimated for each mass candidate using an LDA classifier trained for the 2D features. The mass likelihood images derived from the PVs are backprojected to the breast volume to estimate the 3D spatial distribution of the mass likelihood scores. The FROC curve for mass detection can again be generated by varying the decision threshold on the 3D mass likelihood scores merged by backprojection. In the third approach, the mass likelihood scores estimated by the 3D and 2D approaches, described above, at the corresponding 3D location are combined and evaluated using FROC analysis. A data set of 100 DBT cases acquired with a GE prototype system at the Breast Imaging Laboratory in the Massachusetts General Hospital was used for comparison of the three approaches. The LDA classifiers with stepwise feature selection were designed with leave-one-case-out resampling. In FROC analysis, the CAD system for detection in the DBT volume alone achieved test sensitivities of 80% and 90% at average FP rates of 1.94 and 3.40 per breast, respectively. With the 2D detection approach, the FP rates were 2.86 and 4.05 per breast, respectively, at the corresponding sensitivities. In comparison, the average FP rates of the system combining the 3D and 2D information were 1.23 and 2.04 per breast, respectively, at 80% and 90% sensitivities. The difference in the detection performances between the 2D and the 3D approach, and that between the 3D and the combined approach were both statistically significant (p = 0.02 and 0.01, respectively) as estimated by alternative FROC analysis. The combined system is a promising approach to improving automated mass detection on DBTs.
Chan
Heang-Ping
HP
Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-5842, USA. chanhp@umich.edu
Wei
Jun
J
Zhang
Yiheng
Y
Helvie
Mark A
MA
Moore
Richard H
RH
Sahiner
Berkman
B
Hadjiiski
Lubomir
L
Kopans
Daniel B
DB
D001943:Breast Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008327:Mammography / Q000379:methods*; D010363:Pattern Recognition, Automated; D011857:Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted