4.6 Article

Analysis of computer-aided detection techniques and signal characteristics for clustered microcalcifications on digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis

Journal

PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY
Volume 61, Issue 19, Pages 7092-7112

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/61/19/7092

Keywords

digital breast tomosynthesis; digital mammography; computer-aided detection; microcalcification; planar projection image

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [RO1 CA151443]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

With IRB approval, digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) images of human subjects were collected using a GE GEN2 DBT prototype system. Corresponding digital mammograms (DMs) of the same subjects were collected retrospectively from patient files. The data set contained a total of 237 views of DBT and equal number of DM views from 120 human subjects, each included 163 views with microcalcification clusters (MCs) and 74 views without MCs. The data set was separated into training and independent test sets. The pre-processing, object prescreening and segmentation, false positive reduction and clustering strategies for MC detection by three computer-aided detection (CADe) systems designed for DM, DBT, and a planar projection image generated from DBT were analyzed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves based on features extracted from microcalcifications and free-response ROC (FROC) curves based on scores from MCs were used to quantify the performance of the systems. Jackknife FROC (JAFROC) and nonparametric analysis methods were used to determine the statistical difference between the FROC curves. The difference between the CAD(DM) and CAD(DBT) systems when the false positive rate was estimated from cases without MCs did not reach statistical significance. The study indicates that the large search space in DBT may not be a limiting factor for CADe to achieve similar performance as that observed in DM.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available