Discrimination of benign from malignant breast lesions in dense breasts with model-based analysis of regions-of-interest using directional diffusion-weighted images.

BACKGROUND: There is an increasing interest in non-contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detecting and evaluating breast lesions. We present a methodology utilizing lesion core and periphery region of interest (ROI) features derived from directional diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) data to evaluate performance in discriminating benign from malignant lesions in dense breasts. METHODS: We accrued 55 dense-breast cases with 69 lesions (31 benign; 38 cancer) at a single institution in a prospective study; cases with ROIs exceeding 7.50 cm RESULTS: The region-growing algorithm for 3D lesion model generation improved inter-observer variability over hand drawn ROIs (DSC: 0.66 vs 0.56 (p \u3c 0.001) with substantial agreement (DSC \u3e 0.8) in 46% vs 13% of cases, respectively (p \u3c 0.001)). The overall classifier improved discrimination over mean ADC, (ROC- area under the curve (AUC): 0.85 vs 0.75 and 0.83 vs 0.74 respectively for the two readers). CONCLUSIONS: A classifier generated from directional DWI information using lesion core and lesion periphery information separately can improve lesion discrimination in dense breasts over mean ADC and should be considered for inclusion in computer-aided diagnosis algorithms. Our model-based ROIs could facilitate standardization of breast MRI computer-aided diagnostics (CADx)

Image Processing Algorithms for Digital Mammography: A Pictorial Essay

Digital mammography systems allow manipulation of fine differences in image contrast by means of image processing algorithms. Different display algorithms have advantages and disadvantages for the specific tasks required in breast imaging—diagnosis and screening. Manual intensity windowing can produce digital mammograms very similar to standard screen-film mammograms but is limited by its operator dependence. Histogram-based intensity windowing improves the conspicuity of the lesion edge, but there is loss of detail outside the dense parts of the image. Mixture-model intensity windowing enhances the visibility of lesion borders against the fatty background, but the mixed parenchymal densities abutting the lesion may be lost. Contrast-limited adaptive histogram equalization can also provide subtle edge information but might degrade performance in the screening setting by enhancing the visibility of nuisance information. Unsharp masking enhances the sharpness of the borders of mass lesions, but this algorithm may make even an indistinct mass appear more circumscribed. Peripheral equalization displays lesion details well and preserves the peripheral information in the surrounding breast, but there may be flattening of image contrast in the nonperipheral portions of the image. Trex processing allows visualization of both lesion detail and breast edge information but reduces image contrast

Assessing the Standalone Sensitivity of Computer-aided Detection (CADe) with Cancer Cases from the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST)

To assess the sensitivities and false detection rates of two CADe systems when applied to digital or screen-film mammograms in detecting the known breast cancer cases from the DMIST breast cancer screening population

Radiologists' preferences for digital mammographic display

PURPOSE: To determine the preferences of radiologists among eight different image processing algorithms applied to digital mammograms obtained for screening and diagnostic imaging tasks. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight images representing histologically proved masses or calcifications were obtained by using three clinically available digital mammographic units. Images were processed and printed on film by using manual intensity windowing, histogram-based intensity windowing, mixture model intensity windowing, peripheral equalization, multiscale image contrast amplification (MUSICA), contrast-limited adaptive histogram equalization, Trex processing, and unsharp masking. Twelve radiologists compared the processed digital images with screen-film mammograms obtained in the same patient for breast cancer screening and breast lesion diagnosis. RESULTS: For the screening task, screen-film mammograms were preferred to all digital presentations, but the acceptability of images processed with Trex and MUSICA algorithms were not significantly different. All printed digital images were preferred to screen-film radiographs in the diagnosis of masses; mammograms processed with unsharp masking were significantly preferred. For the diagnosis of calcifications, no processed digital mammogram was preferred to screen-film mammograms. CONCLUSION: When digital mammograms were preferred to screen-film mammograms, radiologists selected different digital processing algorithms for each of three mammographic reading tasks and for different lesion types. Soft-copy display will eventually allow radiologists to select among these options more easily

Interpretation of Digital Mammograms: Comparison of Speed and Accuracy of Soft-Copy versus Printed-Film Display

PURPOSE: To compare the speed and accuracy of the interpretations of digital mammograms by radiologists by using printed-film versus soft-copy display. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After being trained in interpretation of digital mammograms, eight radiologists interpreted 63 digital mammograms, all with old studies for comparison. All studies were interpreted by all readers in soft-copy and printed-film display, with interpretations of images in the same cases at least 1 month apart. Mammograms were interpreted in cases that included six biopsy-proved cancers and 20 biopsy-proved benign lesions, 20 cases of probably benign findings in patients who underwent 6-month follow-up, and 17 cases without apparent findings. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (Az), sensitivity, and specificity were calculated for soft-copy and printed-film display. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the speed of interpretation, but interpretations with soft-copy display were slightly faster. The differences in Az, sensitivity, and specificity were not significantly different; Az and sensitivity were slightly better for interpretations with printed film, and specificity was slightly better for interpretations with soft copy. CONCLUSION: Interpretation with soft-copy display is likely to be useful with digital mammography and is unlikely to significantly change accuracy or speed

Cancer Cases from ACRIN Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial: Radiologist Analysis with Use of a Logistic Regression Model

To determine which factors contributed to the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) cancer detection results