Comparing Performance of the CADstream and the DynaCAD Breast MRI CAD Systems |
| |
Authors: | Joann Pan Basak E Dogan Selin Carkaci Lumarie Santiago Elsa Arribas Scott B Cantor Wei Wei R Jason Stafford Gary J Whitman |
| |
Institution: | 1. Department of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Rice University, P.O. Box 1892, MS-140, Houston, TX, 77251-1892, USA 2. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Houston, TX, 77030, USA 3. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Breast Imaging, 395?W. 12th Ave., Columbus, OH, 43210, USA 4. Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Pressler St., Houston, TX, 77030, USA 5. Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Pressler St., Houston, TX, 77030, USA
|
| |
Abstract: | Computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) systems are software programs that use algorithms to find patterns associated with breast cancer on breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The most commonly used CAD systems in the USA are CADstream (CS) (Merge Healthcare Inc., Chicago, IL) and DynaCAD for Breast (DC) (Invivo, Gainesville, FL). Our primary objective in this study was to compare the CS and DC breast MRI CAD systems for diagnostic accuracy and postprocessed image quality. Our secondary objective was to compare the evaluation times of radiologists using each system. Three radiologists evaluated 30 biopsy-proven malignant lesions and 29 benign lesions on CS and DC and rated the lesions’ malignancy status using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Image quality was ranked on a 0–5 scale, and mean reading times were also recorded. CS detected 70 % of the malignant and 32 % of the benign lesions while DC detected 81 % of the malignant lesions and 34 % of the benign lesions. Analysis of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve revealed that the difference in diagnostic performance was not statistically significant. On image quality scores, CS had significantly higher volume rendering (VR) (p < 0.0001) and motion correction (MC) scores (p < 0.0001). There were no statistically significant differences in the remaining image quality scores. Differences in evaluation times between DC and CS were also not statistically significant. We conclude that both CS and DC perform similarly in aiding detection of breast cancer on MRI. MRI CAD selection will likely be based on other factors, such as user interface and image quality preferences, including MC and VR. |
| |
Keywords: | Breast Breast diseases Computer-assisted detection Computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) Diagnostic imaging MR imaging |
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|