Clinical Application of Computer-Aided Diagnosis According to S-Detect in Category 4 Breast Lesions: Prospective Single-Center Study (Preprint)

BACKGROUND Computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) is a useful tool that can provide a reference for the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant breast lesion. Previous studies have demonstrated that CAD can improve the diagnostic performance. However, conventional ultrasound (US) combined with CAD were used to adjust the classification of category 4 lesions has been few assessed. OBJECTIVE The objective of our study was to evaluate the diagnosis performance of conventional ultrasound combined with a CAD system S-Detect in the category of BI-RADS 4 breast lesions. METHODS Between December 2018 and May 2020, we enrolled patients in this study who received conventional ultrasound and S-Detect before US-guided biopsy or surgical excision. The diagnostic performance was compared between US findings only and the combined use of US findings with S-Detect, which were correlated with pathology results. RESULTS A total of 98 patients (mean age 51.06 ±16.25 years, range 22-81) with 110 breast masses (mean size1.97±1.38cm, range0.6-8.5) were included in this study. Of the 110 breast masses, 64/110 (58.18%) were benign, 46/110 (41.82%) were malignant. Compared with conventional ultrasound, a significant increase in specificity (0% to 53.12%, P<.001), accuracy (41.81% to70.19%, P<.001) were noted, with no statistically significant decrease on sensitivity(100% to 95.65% ,P=.48). According to S-Detect-guided US BI-RADS re-classification, 30 out of 110 (27.27%) breast lesions underwent a correct change in clinical management, 74of 110 (67.27%) breast lesions underwent no change and 6 of 110 (5.45%) breast lesions underwent an incorrect change in clinical management. The biopsy rate decreased from 100% to 67.27 % (P<.001).Benign masses among subcategory 4a had higher rates of possibly benign assessment on S-Detect for the US only (60% to 0%, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS S-Detect can be used as an additional diagnostic tool to improve the specificity and accuracy in clinical practice. S-Detect have the potential to be used in downgrading benign masses misclassified as BI-RADS category 4 on US by radiologist, and may reduce unnecessary breast biopsy. CLINICALTRIAL none

Download Full-text

Evaluation of the effect of computer aided diagnosis system on breast ultrasound for inexperienced radiologists in describing and determining breast lesions

Medical Ultrasonography ◽

10.11152/mu-1889 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 21 (3) ◽

pp. 239

Author(s):

Jeongmin Lee ◽

Sanghee Kim ◽

Bong Joo Kang ◽

Sung Hun Kim ◽

Ga Eun Park

Keyword(s):

Breast Imaging ◽

Diagnostic Performance ◽

Computer Aided Diagnosis ◽

Breast Ultrasound ◽

Breast Lesions ◽

Cad System ◽

Computer Aided ◽

Kappa Value ◽

Inexperienced Reader ◽

Aided Diagnosis

Aim: To investigate the effect of a computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) system on breast ultrasound (US) for inexperienced radiologists in describing and determining breast lesions.Materials and methods: Between October 2015 to January 2017, 500 suspicious or probable benign lesions in 413 patients were reviewed. Five experienced readers retrospectively reviewed for each of 100 lesions according to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon and category, with CAD system (S-detectTM). The readers then made final decisions by combining CAD results to their US results. Using the nested experiment design, five inexperienced readers were asked to select the appropriate BI-RADS lexicons, categories, CAD results, and combination results for each of the 100 lesions, retrospectively. Diagnostic performance of experienced and inexperienced radiologists and CAD were assessed. For each case, agreements in the lexicons and categories were analyzed among the experienced reader, inexperienced reader and CAD.Results: Indicators of the diagnostic performance for breast malignancy of the experienced group (AUC=0.83, 95%CI [0.80, 0.86]) were similar or higher than those of CAD (AUC = 0.79, 95%CI[0.74, 0.83], p=0.101), except for specificity. Conversely, indicators of diagnostic performance of inexperienced group (AUC=0.65, 95%CI[0.58, 0.71]) did not differ from or were lower than those of CAD(AUC=0.73, 95%CI[0.67, 0.78], p=0.013). Also, the diagnostic performance of the inexperienced group after combination with the CAD result was significantly improved (0.71, 95% CI [0.65, 0.77], p=0.001), whereas that of the experienced group did not change after combination with the CAD result, except for specificity and positive predictive value (PPV). Kappa values for the agreement of the categorization between CAD and each radiologist group were increased after applying the CAD result to their result of general US. Especially, the increase of the Kappa value was higher in the inexperienced group than in the experienced group. Also, for all the lexicons, the Kappa values between the experienced group and CAD were higher than those between the inexperienced group and CAD.Conclusion: By using the CAD system for classification of breast lesions, diagnostic performance of the inexperienced radiologists for malignancy was significantly improved, and better agreement was observed in lexicons between the experienced group and CAD than between the inexperienced group and CAD. CAD may be beneficial and educational for the inexperienced group.

Download Full-text