The Added Value of a Computer‐Aided Diagnosis System in Differential Diagnosis of Breast Lesions by Radiologists With Different Experience

Objectives To evaluate the value of the computer‐aided diagnosis system, S‐Detect (based on deep learning algorithm), in distinguishing benign and malignant breast masses and reducing unnecessary biopsy based on the experience of radiologists. Methods From February 2018 to March 2019, 266 breast mas...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of ultrasound in medicine 2022-06, Vol.41 (6), p.1355-1363
Main Authors: Wei, Qi, Zeng, Shu‐E, Wang, Li‐Ping, Yan, Yu‐Jing, Wang, Ting, Xu, Jian‐Wei, Zhang, Meng‐Yi, Lv, Wen‐Zhi, Dietrich, Christoph F., Cui, Xin‐Wu
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Breast - diagnostic imaging
Breast - pathology
breast mass
Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging
Breast Neoplasms - pathology
Computers
computer‐aided diagnosis
Diagnosis, Differential
differential diagnosis
Female
Humans
Radiologists
Sensitivity and Specificity
ultrasound
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objectives To evaluate the value of the computer‐aided diagnosis system, S‐Detect (based on deep learning algorithm), in distinguishing benign and malignant breast masses and reducing unnecessary biopsy based on the experience of radiologists. Methods From February 2018 to March 2019, 266 breast masses in 192 women were included in our study. Ultrasound (US) examination, including S‐Detect technique, was performed by the radiologist with about 10 years of clinical experience in breast US imaging. US images were analyzed by four other radiologists with different experience in breast imaging (radiologists 1, 2, 3, and 4 with 1, 4, 9, and 20 years, respectively) according to their clinical experience (with and without the results of S‐Detect). Diagnostic capabilities and unnecessary biopsy of radiologists and radiologists combined with S‐Detect were compared and analyzed. Results After referring to the results of S‐Detect, the changes made by less experienced radiologists were greater than experienced radiologists (benign or malignant, 44 vs 22 vs 14 vs 2; unnecessary biopsy, 34 vs 25 vs 10 vs 5). When combined with S‐Detect, less experienced radiologists showed significant improvement in accuracy, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and area under curve (P  .05). Similarly, the unnecessary biopsy rate of less experienced radiologists decreased significantly (44.4% vs 32.7%, P = .006; 36.8% vs 28.2%, P = .033), but not for experienced radiologists (P > .05). Conclusions Less experienced radiologists rely more on S‐Detect software. And S‐Detect can be an effective decision‐making tool for breast US, especially for less experienced radiologists. Access the CME test here and search by article title.
ISSN:0278-4297
1550-9613
DOI:10.1002/jum.15816