Mammographic density: Comparison of visual assessment with fully automatic calculation on a multivendor dataset.

OBJECTIVES: To compare breast density (BD) assessment provided by an automated BD evaluator (ABDE) with that provided by a panel of experienced breast radiologists, on a multivendor dataset. METHODS: Twenty-one radiologists assessed 613 screening/diagnostic digital mammograms from nine centers and six different vendors, using the BI-RADS a, b, c, and d density classification. The same mammograms were also evaluated by an ABDE providing the ratio between fibroglandular and total breast area on a continuous scale and, automatically, the BI-RADS score. A panel majority report (PMR) was used as reference standard. Agreement (κ) and accuracy (proportion of cases correctly classified) were calculated for binary (BI-RADS a-b versus c-d) and 4-class classification. RESULTS: While the agreement of individual radiologists with the PMR ranged from κ = 0.483 to κ = 0.885, the ABDE correctly classified 563/613 mammograms (92 %). A substantial agreement for binary classification was found for individual reader pairs (κ = 0.620, standard deviation [SD] = 0.140), individual versus PMR (κ = 0.736, SD = 0.117), and individual versus ABDE (κ = 0.674, SD = 0.095). Agreement between ABDE and PMR was almost perfect (κ = 0.831). CONCLUSIONS: The ABDE showed an almost perfect agreement with a 21-radiologist panel in binary BD classification on a multivendor dataset, earning a chance as a reproducible alternative to visual evaluation. KEY POINTS: Individual BD assessment differs from PMR with κ as low as 0.483. An ABDE correctly classified 92 % of mammograms with almost perfect agreement (κ = 0.831). An ABDE can be a valid alternative to subjective BD assessment.

Breast Cancer: Computer-aided Detection with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate a commercial tomosynthesis computer-aided detection (CAD) system in an independent, multicenter dataset. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Diagnostic and screening tomosynthesis mammographic examinations (n = 175; cranial caudal and mediolateral oblique) were randomly selected from a previous institutional review board-approved trial. All subjects gave informed consent. Examinations were performed in three centers and included 123 patients, with 132 biopsy-proven screening-detected cancers, and 52 examinations with negative results at 1-year follow-up. One hundred eleven lesions were masses and/or microcalcifications (72 masses, 22 microcalcifications, 17 masses with microcalcifications) and 21 were architectural distortions. Lesions were annotated by radiologists who were aware of all available reports. CAD performance was assessed as per-lesion sensitivity and false-positive results per volume in patients with negative results. RESULTS: Use of the CAD system showed per-lesion sensitivity of 89% (99 of 111; 95% confidence interval: 81%, 94%), with 2.7 ± 1.8 false-positive rate per view, 62 of 72 lesions detected were masses, 20 of 22 were microcalcification clusters, and 17 of 17 were masses with microcalcifications. Overall, 37 of 39 microcalcification clusters (95% sensitivity, 95% confidence interval: 81%, 99%) and 79 of 89 masses (89% sensitivity, 95% confidence interval: 80%, 94%) were detected with the CAD system. On average, 0.5 false-positive rate per view were microcalcification clusters, 2.1 were masses, and 0.1 were masses and microcalcifications. CONCLUSION: A digital breast tomosynthesis CAD system can allow detection of a large percentage (89%, 99 of 111) of breast cancers manifesting as masses and microcalcification clusters, with an acceptable false-positive rate (2.7 per breast view). Further studies with larger datasets acquired with equipment from multiple vendors are needed to replicate the findings and to study the interaction of radiologists and CAD systems.

An automatic method for colon segmentation in CT colonography.

An automatic method for the segmentation of the colonic wall is proposed for abdominal computed tomography (CT) of the cleansed and air-inflated colon. This multistage approach uses an adaptive 3D region-growing algorithm, with a self-adjusting growing condition depending on local variations of the intensity at the air-tissue boundary. The method was evaluated using retrospectively collected CT scans based on visual segmentation of the colon by expert radiologists. This evaluation showed that the procedure identifies 97% of the colon segments, representing 99.8% of the colon surface, and accurately replicates the anatomical profile of the colonic wall. The parameter settings and performance of the method are relatively independent of the scanner and acquisition conditions. The method is intended for application to the computer-aided detection of polyps in CT colonography.