Application of computer-aided diagnosis on breast ultrasonography

Evaluation of diagnostic performances and agreement of radiologists accordingto different levels of experience

Eun Cho, Eunkyung Kim, Mi Kyung Song, Jung Hyun Yoon

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives-To investigate the feasibility of a computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) system (S-Detect; Samsung Medison, Co, Ltd, Seoul, Korea) for breast ultrasonography (US), according to radiologists with various degrees of experience in breast imaging. Methods-From December 2015 to March 2016, 119 breast masses in 116 women were included. Ultrasonographic images of the breast masses were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed by 2 radiologists specializing in breast imaging (7 and 1 years of experience, respectively) and S-Detect, according to the individual ultrasonographic descriptors from the fifth edition of the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System and final assessment categories. Diagnostic performance and the interobserver agreement among the radiologists and SDetect was calculated and compared. Results-Among the 119 breast masses, 54 (45.4%) were malignant, and 65 (54.6%) were benign. Compared to the radiologists, S-Detect had higher specificity (90.8% compared to 49.2% and 55.4%) and positive predictive value (PPV; 86.7% compared to 60.7% and 63.8%) (all P<.001). Both radiologists had significantly improved specificity, PPV, and accuracy when using S-Detect compared to US alone (all P<.001). The area under the receiving operating characteristic curves of the both radiologists did not show a significant improvement when applying S-Detect compared to US alone (all P>.05). Moderate agreement was seen in final assessments made by each radiologist and S-Detect (κ=0.40 and 0.45, respectively). Conclusions-S-Detect is a clinically feasible diagnostic tool that can be used to improve the specificity, PPV, and accuracy of breast US, with a moderate degree of agreement in final assessments, regardless of the experience of the radiologist.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)209-216
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Ultrasound in Medicine
Volume37
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018 Jan 1

Fingerprint

Mammary Ultrasonography
Breast
Korea
Radiology
Information Systems
Radiologists

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

@article{8d8e46a34870430fb3a9e83d71341edc,
title = "Application of computer-aided diagnosis on breast ultrasonography: Evaluation of diagnostic performances and agreement of radiologists accordingto different levels of experience",
abstract = "Objectives-To investigate the feasibility of a computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) system (S-Detect; Samsung Medison, Co, Ltd, Seoul, Korea) for breast ultrasonography (US), according to radiologists with various degrees of experience in breast imaging. Methods-From December 2015 to March 2016, 119 breast masses in 116 women were included. Ultrasonographic images of the breast masses were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed by 2 radiologists specializing in breast imaging (7 and 1 years of experience, respectively) and S-Detect, according to the individual ultrasonographic descriptors from the fifth edition of the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System and final assessment categories. Diagnostic performance and the interobserver agreement among the radiologists and SDetect was calculated and compared. Results-Among the 119 breast masses, 54 (45.4{\%}) were malignant, and 65 (54.6{\%}) were benign. Compared to the radiologists, S-Detect had higher specificity (90.8{\%} compared to 49.2{\%} and 55.4{\%}) and positive predictive value (PPV; 86.7{\%} compared to 60.7{\%} and 63.8{\%}) (all P<.001). Both radiologists had significantly improved specificity, PPV, and accuracy when using S-Detect compared to US alone (all P<.001). The area under the receiving operating characteristic curves of the both radiologists did not show a significant improvement when applying S-Detect compared to US alone (all P>.05). Moderate agreement was seen in final assessments made by each radiologist and S-Detect (κ=0.40 and 0.45, respectively). Conclusions-S-Detect is a clinically feasible diagnostic tool that can be used to improve the specificity, PPV, and accuracy of breast US, with a moderate degree of agreement in final assessments, regardless of the experience of the radiologist.",
author = "Eun Cho and Eunkyung Kim and Song, {Mi Kyung} and Yoon, {Jung Hyun}",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/jum.14332",
language = "English",
volume = "37",
pages = "209--216",
journal = "Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine",
issn = "0278-4297",
publisher = "American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Application of computer-aided diagnosis on breast ultrasonography

T2 - Evaluation of diagnostic performances and agreement of radiologists accordingto different levels of experience

AU - Cho, Eun

AU - Kim, Eunkyung

AU - Song, Mi Kyung

AU - Yoon, Jung Hyun

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Objectives-To investigate the feasibility of a computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) system (S-Detect; Samsung Medison, Co, Ltd, Seoul, Korea) for breast ultrasonography (US), according to radiologists with various degrees of experience in breast imaging. Methods-From December 2015 to March 2016, 119 breast masses in 116 women were included. Ultrasonographic images of the breast masses were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed by 2 radiologists specializing in breast imaging (7 and 1 years of experience, respectively) and S-Detect, according to the individual ultrasonographic descriptors from the fifth edition of the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System and final assessment categories. Diagnostic performance and the interobserver agreement among the radiologists and SDetect was calculated and compared. Results-Among the 119 breast masses, 54 (45.4%) were malignant, and 65 (54.6%) were benign. Compared to the radiologists, S-Detect had higher specificity (90.8% compared to 49.2% and 55.4%) and positive predictive value (PPV; 86.7% compared to 60.7% and 63.8%) (all P<.001). Both radiologists had significantly improved specificity, PPV, and accuracy when using S-Detect compared to US alone (all P<.001). The area under the receiving operating characteristic curves of the both radiologists did not show a significant improvement when applying S-Detect compared to US alone (all P>.05). Moderate agreement was seen in final assessments made by each radiologist and S-Detect (κ=0.40 and 0.45, respectively). Conclusions-S-Detect is a clinically feasible diagnostic tool that can be used to improve the specificity, PPV, and accuracy of breast US, with a moderate degree of agreement in final assessments, regardless of the experience of the radiologist.

AB - Objectives-To investigate the feasibility of a computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) system (S-Detect; Samsung Medison, Co, Ltd, Seoul, Korea) for breast ultrasonography (US), according to radiologists with various degrees of experience in breast imaging. Methods-From December 2015 to March 2016, 119 breast masses in 116 women were included. Ultrasonographic images of the breast masses were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed by 2 radiologists specializing in breast imaging (7 and 1 years of experience, respectively) and S-Detect, according to the individual ultrasonographic descriptors from the fifth edition of the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System and final assessment categories. Diagnostic performance and the interobserver agreement among the radiologists and SDetect was calculated and compared. Results-Among the 119 breast masses, 54 (45.4%) were malignant, and 65 (54.6%) were benign. Compared to the radiologists, S-Detect had higher specificity (90.8% compared to 49.2% and 55.4%) and positive predictive value (PPV; 86.7% compared to 60.7% and 63.8%) (all P<.001). Both radiologists had significantly improved specificity, PPV, and accuracy when using S-Detect compared to US alone (all P<.001). The area under the receiving operating characteristic curves of the both radiologists did not show a significant improvement when applying S-Detect compared to US alone (all P>.05). Moderate agreement was seen in final assessments made by each radiologist and S-Detect (κ=0.40 and 0.45, respectively). Conclusions-S-Detect is a clinically feasible diagnostic tool that can be used to improve the specificity, PPV, and accuracy of breast US, with a moderate degree of agreement in final assessments, regardless of the experience of the radiologist.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85045759925&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85045759925&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/jum.14332

DO - 10.1002/jum.14332

M3 - Article

VL - 37

SP - 209

EP - 216

JO - Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine

JF - Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine

SN - 0278-4297

IS - 1

ER -