4.7 Article

Evaluation of Breast Cancer Size Measurement by Computer-Aided Diagnosis (CAD) and a Radiologist on Breast MRI

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
Volume 11, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11051172

Keywords

magnetic resonance imaging; breast neoplasm; computers; diagnosis; radiologists

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated the measurement of cancer size by computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) and radiologist on breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) relative to histopathology. The results showed a very strong correlation between CAD and radiologist measurements with pathology. Radiologist-measured size was significantly more accurate than CAD size. However, both CAD and radiologist measurements can be inaccurate for cancers with specific factors such as extensive intraductal component (EIC) or non-mass enhancement.
Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate cancer size measurement by computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) and radiologist on breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) relative to histopathology and to determine clinicopathologic and MRI factors that may affect measurements. Methods: Preoperative MRI of 208 breast cancers taken between January 2017 and March 2021 were included. We evaluated correlation between CAD-generated size and pathologic size as well as that between radiologist-measured size and pathologic size. We classified size discrepancies into accurate and inaccurate groups. For both CAD and radiologist, clinicopathologic and imaging factors were compared between accurate and inaccurate groups. Results: The mean sizes as predicted by CAD, radiologist and pathology were 2.66 +/- 1.68 cm, 2.54 +/- 1.68 cm, and 2.30 +/- 1.61 cm, with significant difference (p < 0.001). Correlation coefficients of cancer size measurement by radiologist and CAD in reference to pathology were 0.898 and 0.823. Radiologist's measurement was more accurate than CAD, with statistical significance (p < 0.001). CAD-generated measurement was significantly more inaccurate for cancers of larger pathologic size (>2 cm), in the presence of an extensive intraductal component (EIC), with positive progesterone receptor (PR), and of non-mass enhancement (p = 0.045, 0.045, 0.03 and 0.002). Radiologist-measured size was significantly more inaccurate for cancers in presence of an in situ component, EIC, positive human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and non-mass enhancement (p = 0.017, 0.008, 0.003 and <0.001). Conclusion: Breast cancer size measurement showed a very strong correlation between CAD and pathology and radiologist and pathology. Radiologist-measured size was significantly more accurate than CAD size. Cancer size measurement by CAD and radiologist can both be inaccurate for cancers with EIC or non-mass enhancement.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available