Improving Accuracy and Efficiency with Concurrent Use of Artificial Intelligence for Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to shorten digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) reading time while maintaining or improving accuracy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A deep learning AI system was developed to identify suspicious soft-tissue and calcified lesions in DBT images. A reader study compared the performance of 24 radiologists (13 of whom were breast subspecialists) reading 260 DBT examinations (including 65 cancer cases) both with and without AI. Readings occurred in two sessions separated by at least 4 weeks. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), reading time, sensitivity, specificity, and recall rate were evaluated with statistical methods for multireader, multicase studies. RESULTS: Radiologist performance for the detection of malignant lesions, measured by mean AUC, increased 0.057 with the use of AI (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.028, 0.087; P < .01), from 0.795 without AI to 0.852 with AI. Reading time decreased 52.7% (95% CI: 41.8%, 61.5%; P < .01), from 64.1 seconds without to 30.4 seconds with AI. Sensitivity increased from 77.0% without AI to 85.0% with AI (8.0%; 95% CI: 2.6%, 13.4%; P < .01), specificity increased from 62.7% without to 69.6% with AI (6.9%; 95% CI: 3.0%, 10.8%; noninferiority P < .01), and recall rate for noncancers decreased from 38.0% without to 30.9% with AI (7.2%; 95% CI: 3.1%, 11.2%; noninferiority P < .01). CONCLUSION: The concurrent use of an accurate DBT AI system was found to improve cancer detection efficacy in a reader study that demonstrated increases in AUC, sensitivity, and specificity and a reduction in recall rate and reading time.© RSNA, 2019See also the commentary by Hsu and Hoyt in this issue.

Fully automated prostate segmentation on MRI: comparison with manual segmentation methods and specimen volumes.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to compare calculated prostate volumes derived from tridimensional MR measurements (ellipsoid formula), manual segmentation, and a fully automated segmentation system as validated by actual prostatectomy specimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-eight consecutive patients (median age, 60.6 years; median prostate-specific antigen [PSA] value, 6.85 ng/mL) underwent triplane T2-weighted MRI on a 3-T magnet with an endorectal coil while undergoing diagnostic workup for prostate cancer. Prostate volume estimates were determined using the formula for ellipsoid volume based on tridimensional measurements, manual segmentation of triplane MRI, and automated segmentation based on normalized gradient fields cross-correlation and graph-search refinement. Estimates of prostate volume based on ellipsoid volume, manual segmentation, and automated segmentation were compared with prostatectomy specimen volumes. Prostate volume estimates were compared using the Pearson correlation coefficient and linear regression analysis. The Dice similarity coefficient was used to quantify spatial agreement between manual segmentation and automated segmentation. RESULTS: The Pearson correlation coefficient revealed strong positive correlation between prostatectomy specimen volume and prostate volume estimates derived from manual segmentation (R = 0.89-0.91, p < 0.0001) and automated segmentation (R = 0.88-0.91, p < 0.0001). No difference was observed between manual segmentation and automated segmentation. Mean partial and full Dice similarity coefficients of 0.92 and 0.89, respectively, were achieved for axial automated segmentation. CONCLUSION: Prostate volume estimates obtained with a fully automated 3D segmentation tool based on normalized gradient fields cross-correlation and graph-search refinement can yield highly accurate prostate volume estimates in a clinically relevant time of 10 seconds. This tool will assist in developing a broad range of applications including routine prostate volume estimations, image registration, biopsy guidance, and decision support systems.

Automated nodule location and size estimation using a multi-scale Laplacian of Gaussian filtering approach.

Estimation of nodule location and size is an important pre-processing step in some nodule segmentation algorithms to determine the size and location of the region of interest. Ideally, such estimation methods will consistently find the same nodule location regardless of where the the seed point (provided either manually or by a nodule detection algorithm) is placed relative to the "true" center of the nodule, and the size should be a reasonable estimate of the true nodule size. We developed a method that estimates nodule location and size using multi-scale Laplacian of Gaussian (LoG) filtering. Nodule candidates near a given seed point are found by searching for blob-like regions with high filter response. The candidates are then pruned according to filter response and location, and the remaining candidates are sorted by size and the largest candidate selected. This method was compared to a previously published template-based method. The methods were evaluated on the basis of stability of the estimated nodule location to changes in the initial seed point and how well the size estimates agreed with volumes determined by a semi-automated nodule segmentation method. The LoG method exhibited better stability to changes in the seed point, with 93% of nodules having the same estimated location even when the seed point was altered, compared to only 52% of nodules for the template-based method. Both methods also showed good agreement with sizes determined by a nodule segmentation method, with an average relative size difference of 5% and -5% for the LoG and template-based methods respectively.