Computer-aided diagnosis in digitalmammography: comparison of twocommercial systems

Donato Cascio, Giuseppe Raso, Francesco Fauci, Marius Iacomi, Maria Simone Vasile, Debora Castrogiovanni, Guido Filosto, Raffaele Ienzi, Marius Mihail Iacomi

Risultato della ricerca: Articlepeer review

13 Citazioni (Scopus)

Abstract

Aim: Within this work, a comparative analysis of two commercial computer-aideddetection or diagnosis (CAD) systems, CyclopusCAD® mammo (v. 6.0) produced byCyclopusCAD Ltd (Palermo, Italy) and SecondLook® (v. 6.1C) produced by iCAD Inc.(OH, USA) is performed by evaluating the results of both systems application on anunique set of mammographic digital images routinely acquired in a hospital structure.Materials &amp; methods: The two CAD systems have been separately applied on a sampleset of 126 mammographic digital cases, having been independently diagnosed by twosenior radiologists. According to the human diagnosis, the cases in the sample referenceset are divided into 61 negatives and 65 pathological cases (21 cases displaying bothmass lesions and microcalcifications and 44 cases characterized only by mass lesions).The images in the pathological subset contain 123 human diagnosed mass lesionsand 37 human diagnosed microcalcifications clusters. In the case of CyclopusCAD,the system offered the possibility to evaluate sensitivity at several threshold levels(working points); five different setting levels (high sensitivity, normal sensitivity,standard, normal specificity and high specificity) have been used. Results: At thestandard threshold level, CyclopusCAD exhibits an overall sensitivity of 83.1 versus66.2% for iCAD (p = 0.04) and an average number of false positives per image (FP/im)of 1.38 against 0.47 for iCAD (p < 0.01). Specifically, for the mass lesions, CyclopusCADexhibits a sensitivity of 76.9% at a rate of 0.73 FP/im, while iCAD displays a sensitivityof 61.5% at 0.28 FP/im. For the microcalcifications, CyclopusCAD exhibits a sensitivityof 76.2% at a rate of 0.64 FP/image, while iCAD displays a sensitivity of 61.9% at0.19 FP/im. The reported results have also been expressed in terms of free-responsereceiver operating characteristic curves, corresponding to five different thresholds inthe case of CyclopusCAD and to one single threshold value for iCAD. Conclusion: Theoverall accuracies of the two systems are fairly comparable up to the uncertainty levelof this analysis. CyclopusCAD may reach a higher sensitivity level for both masses andmicrocalcifications owing to the flexibility in the working point choice, with the priceof a major number of FP/im.
Lingua originaleEnglish
pagine (da-a)13-20
Numero di pagine8
RivistaImaging in Medicine
Volume6
Stato di pubblicazionePublished - 2014

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Fingerprint Entra nei temi di ricerca di 'Computer-aided diagnosis in digitalmammography: comparison of twocommercial systems'. Insieme formano una fingerprint unica.

Cita questo