Ratan Shah

Detection and Classification of Calcifications on Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and 2D Digital Mammography: A Comparison

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this article is to compare the ability of digital breast tomosynthesis and full field digital mammography (FFDM) to detect and characterize calcifications. MATERIALS AND METHODS One hundred paired examinations were performed utilizing FFDM and digital breast tomosynthesis. Twenty biopsy-proven cancers, 40 biopsy-proven benign calcifications, and 40 randomly selected negative screening studies were retrospectively reviewed by five radiologists in a crossed multireader multimodal observer performance study. Data collected included the presence of calcifications and forced BI-RADS scores. Receiver operator curve analysis using BI-RADS was performed. RESULTS Overall calcification detection sensitivity was higher for FFDM (84% [95% CI, 79-88%]) than for digital breast tomosynthesis (75% [95% CI, 70-80%]). [corrected] In the cancer cohort, 75 (76%) of 99 interpretations identified calcification in both modes. Of those, a BI-RADS score less than or equal to 2 was rendered in three (4%) and nine (12%) cases with FFDM and digital breast tomosynthesis, respectively. In the benign cohort, 123 (62%) of 200 interpretations identified calcifications in both modes. Of those, a BI-RADS score greater than or equal to 3 was assigned in 105 (85%) and 93 (76%) cases with FFDM and digital breast tomosynthesis, respectively. There was no significant difference in the nonparametric computed area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) using the BI-RADS scores (FFDM, AUC = 0.76 and SD = 0.03; digital breast tomosynthesis, AUC = 0.72 and SD = 0.04 [p = 0.1277]). CONCLUSION In this small data set, FFDM appears to be slightly more sensitive than digital breast tomosynthesis for the detection of calcification. However, diagnostic performance as measured by area under the curve using BI-RADS was not significantly different. With improvements in processing algorithms and display, digital breast tomosynthesis could potentially be improved for this purpose.

Recall and detection rates in screening mammography: A review of clinical experience: Implications for practice guidelines

The authors investigated the correlation between recall and detection rates in a group of 10 radiologists who had read a high volume of screening mammograms in an academic institution.

Detection and classification performance levels of mammographic masses under different computer-aided detection cueing environments1

Abstract Rationale and objectives The authors evaluated the impact of different computer-aided detection (CAD) cueing conditions on radiologists’ performance levels in detecting and classifying masses depicted on mammograms. Materials and methods In an observer performance study, eight radiologists interpreted 110 subtle cases six times under different display conditions to detect depicted masses and classify them as benign or malignant. Forty-five cases depicted biopsy-proven masses and 65 were negative. One mass-based cueing sensitivity of 80% and two false-positive cueing rates of 1.2 and 0.5 per image were used in this study. In one mode, radiologists first interpreted images without CAD results, followed by the display of cues and reinterpretation. In another mode, radiologists viewed CAD cues as images were presented and then interpreted images. Free-response receiver operating characteristic method was used to analyze and compare detection performance. The receiver operating characteristic method was used to evaluate classification performance. Results At these performance levels, providing cues after initial interpretation had little effect on the overall performance in detecting masses. However, in the mode with the highest false-positive cueing rate, viewing CAD cues immediately upon display of images significantly reduced average performance for both detection and classification tasks ( P Conclusion CAD systems with low sensitivity (≤80% on mass-based detection) and high false-positive rate (≥0.5 per image) in a dataset with subtle abnormalities had little effect on radiologists’ performance in the detection and classification of mammographic masses.

Multi-site telemammography system: preliminary assessment of technical and operational issues

Our goal was to develop an inexpensive, high-quality, multi-site telemammography system, implemented with low-level data connections that provided a communication link for an “almost real-time” response from a radiologist (central site) to remote “underserved” sites. The remote sites digitize mammographic films using high-resolution, laser digitizers. Images are automatically cropped, compressed (wavelet-based), and encrypted prior to transmission. At the central site images are decrypted, decompressed, unsharp masked, and displayed using automatically determined LUTs. The sites communicate instantly via a “chat box.” Remote sites 1, 2, and 3 are 15, 20, and 90 miles from the central site, respectively, and connected by POTS (sites 1 and 2) and LAN (site 3). Only minimal noticeable difference at compression levels of 50:1 and 75:1 could be identified unless magnified to extreme levels. Two experienced observers rated the LUTs for 200 images as “acceptable” to “excellent.” Average cycle times to digitize, transmit and receive cases (four films each) at 75:1 compression were 5.97, 6.85, and 5.77 min/case from sites 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Unique data-handling schemes significantly decrease the image file size and allow successful transmission in a reliable, timely manner. Over 1000 cases have been transmitted to date. Messaging was found to be easy to use.

Impact of and Interaction between the Availability of Prior Examinations and DBT on the Interpretation of Negative and Benign Mammograms

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES To assess the interaction between the availability of prior examinations and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in decisions to recall a woman during interpretation of mammograms. MATERIALS AND METHODS Eight radiologists independently interpreted twice 36 mammography examinations, each of which had current and prior full-field digital mammography images (FFDM) and DBT under a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant, institutional review board-approved protocol (written consent waived). During the first reading, three sequential ratings were provided using FFDM only, followed by FFDM + DBT, and then followed by FFDM + DBT + priors. The second reading included FFDM only, then FFDM + priors, and then FFDM + priors + DBT. Twenty-two benign cases clinically recalled, 12 negative/benign examinations (not recalled), and two verified cancer cases were included. Recall recommendations and interaction between the effect of priors and DBT on decisions were assessed (P = .05 significance level) using generalized linear model (PROC GLIMMIX, SAS, version 9.3; SAS Institute, Cary, NC) accounting for case and reader variability. RESULTS Average recall rates in noncancer cases were significantly reduced (51%; P < .001) with the addition of DBT and with addition of priors (23%; P = .01). In absolute terms, the addition of DBT to FFDM reduced the recall rates from 0.67 to 0.42 and from 0.54 to 0.27 when DBT was available before and after priors, respectively. Recall reductions were from 0.64 to 0.54 and from 0.42 to 0.33 when priors were available before and after DBT, respectively. Regardless of the sequence in presentation, there were no statistically significant interactions between the effect of availability of DBT and priors (P = .80). CONCLUSIONS Availability of both priors and DBT are independent primary factors in reducing recall recommendations during mammographic interpretations.

Subjective assessment of high-level image compression of digitized mammograms

This study was designed to evaluate radiologists’ ability to identify highly-compressed, digitized mammographic images displayed on high-resolution, monitors. Mammography films were digitized at 50 micron pixel dimensions using a high-resolution laser film digitizer. Image data were compressed using the irreversible (lossy), wavelet-based JPEG 2000 method. Twenty images were randomly presented in pairs (one image per monitor) in three modes: mode 1, non-compressed versus 50:1 compression; mode 2, non-compressed versus 75:1 compression; and mode 3, 50:1 versus 75:1 compression with 20 random pairs presented twice (80 pairs total). Six radiologists were forced to choose which image had the lower level of data compression in a two-alternative forced choice paradigm. The average percent correct across the six radiologists for modes 1, 2 and 3 were 52.5% (+/-11.3), 58.3% (+/-14.7), and 58.3% (+/-7.5), respectively. Intra-reader agreement ranged from 10 to 50% and Kappa from -0.78 to -0.19. Kappa for inter-reader agreement ranged from -0.47 to 0.37. The “monitor effect” (left/right) was of the same order of magnitude as the radiologists’ ability to identify the lower level of image compression. In this controlled evaluation, radiologists did not accurately discriminate non-compressed and highly-compressed images. Therefore, 75:1 image compression should be acceptable for review of digitized mammograms in a telemammography system.