Background The purpose of this work was to evaluate computable Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) radiomic features to classify breast masses on ultrasound B-mode images. Methods The database consisted of 206 consecutive lesions (144 benign and 62 malignant) proved by percutaneous biopsy in a prospective study approved by the local ethical committee. A radiologist manually delineated the contour of the lesions on greyscale images. We extracted the main ten radiomic features based on the BI-RADS lexicon and classified the lesions as benign or malignant using a bottom-up approach for five machine learning (ML) methods: multilayer perceptron (MLP), decision tree (DT), linear discriminant analysis (LDA), random forest (RF), and support vector machine (SVM). We performed a 10-fold cross validation for training and testing of all classifiers. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used for providing the area under the curve with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results The classifier with the highest AUC at ROC analysis was SVM (AUC = 0.840, 95% CI 0.6667–0.9762), with 71.4% sensitivity (95% CI 0.6479–0.8616) and 76.9% specificity (95% CI 0.6148–0.8228). The best AUC for each method was 0.744 (95% CI 0.677–0.774) for DT, 0.818 (95% CI 0.6667–0.9444) for LDA, 0.811 (95% CI 0.710–0.892) for RF, and 0.806 (95% CI 0.677–0.839) for MLP. Lesion margin and orientation were the optimal features for all the machine learning methods. Conclusions ML can aid the distinction between benign and malignant breast lesion on ultrasound images using quantified BI-RADS descriptors. SVM provided the highest ROC-AUC (0.840).

This research presents a methodology for the automatic detection and characterization of breast sonographic findings. We performed the tests in ultrasound images obtained from breast phantoms made of tissue mimicking material. When the results were considerable, we applied the same techniques to clinical examinations. The process was started employing preprocessing (Wiener filter, equalization, and median filter) to minimize noise. Then, five segmentation techniques were investigated to determine the most concise representation of the lesion contour, enabling us to consider the neural network SOM as the most relevant. After the delimitation of the object, the most expressive features were defined to the morphological description of the finding, generating the input data to the neural Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) classifier. The accuracy achieved during training with simulated images was 94.2%, producing an AUC of 0.92. To evaluating the data generalization, the classification was performed with a group of unknown images to the system, both to simulators and to clinical trials, resulting in an accuracy of 90% and 81%, respectively. The proposed classifier proved to be an important tool for the diagnosis in breast ultrasound.

No abstract

No abstract

Objectives:To determine the applicability of a computer-aided diagnostic system strain elastography system for the classification of breast masses diagnosed by ultrasound and scored using the criteria proposed by the breast imaging and reporting data system ultrasound lexicon and to determine the diagnostic accuracy and interobserver variability.Methods:This prospective study was conducted between March 1, 2016, and May 30, 2016. A total of 83 breast masses subjected to percutaneous biopsy were included. Ultrasound elastography images before biopsy were interpreted by 3 radiologists with and without the aid of computer-aided diagnostic system for strain elastography. The parameters evaluated by each radiologist results were sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy, with and without computer-aided diagnostic system for strain elastography. Interobserver variability was assessed using a weighted κ test and an intraclass correlation coefficient. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves were also calculated.Results:The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve were 0.835, 0.801, and 0.765 for readers 1, 2, and 3, respectively, without computer-aided diagnostic system for strain elastography, and 0.900, 0.926, and 0.868, respectively, with computer-aided diagnostic system for strain elastography. The intraclass correlation coefficient between the 3 readers was 0.6713 without computer-aided diagnostic system for strain elastography and 0.811 with computer-aided diagnostic system for strain elastography.Conclusion:The proposed computer-aided diagnostic system for strain elastography system has the potential to improve the diagnostic performance of radiologists in breast examination using ultrasound associated with elastography.

Ultrasound (US) is a useful diagnostic tool to distinguish benign from malignant breast masses, providing more detailed evaluation in dense breasts. Due to the subjectivity in the images interpretation, computer-aid diagnosis (CAD) schemes have been developed, increasing the mammography analysis process to include ultrasound images as complementary exams. As one of most important task in the evaluation of this kind of images is the mass detection and its contours interpretation, automated segmentation techniques have been investigated in order to determine a quite suitable procedure to perform such an analysis. Thus, the main goal in this work is investigating the effect of some processing techniques used to provide information on the determination of suspicious breast lesions as well as their accurate boundaries in ultrasound images. In tests, 80 phantom and 50 clinical ultrasound images were preprocessed, and 5 segmentation techniques were tested. By using quantitative evaluation metrics the results were compared to a reference image delineated by an experienced radiologist. A self-organizing map artificial neural network has provided the most relevant results, demonstrating high accuracy and low error rate in the lesions representation, corresponding hence to the segmentation process for US images in our CAD scheme under tests.

Objective: To determine the best cutoff value for classifying breast masses by ultrasound elastography, using dedicated software for strain elastography, and to determine the level of interobserver agreement. Materials and Methods: We enrolled 83 patients with 83 breast masses identified on ultrasound and referred for biopsy. After B-mode ultrasound examination, the lesions were manually segmented by three radiologists with varying degrees of experience in breast imaging, designated reader 1 (R1, with 15 years), reader 2 (R2, with 2 years), and reader 3 (R3, with 8 years). Elastography was performed automatically on the best image with computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) software. Cutoff values of 70%, 75%, 80%, and 90% of hard areas were applied for determining the performance of the CAD software. The best cutoff value for the most experienced radiologists was then compared with the visual assessment. Interobserver agreement for the best cutoff value was determined, as were the interclass correlation coefficient and concordance among the radiologists for the areas segmented. Results: The best cutoff value of the proportion of hard area within a breast mass, for experienced radiologists, was found to be 75%. At a cutoff value of 75%, the interobserver agreement was excellent between R1 and R2, as well as between R1 and R3, and good between R2 and R3. The interclass concordance coefficient among the three radiologists was 0.950. When assessing the segmented areas by size, we found that the level of agreement was higher among the more experienced radiologists. Conclusion: The best cutoff value for a quantitative CAD system to classify breast masses was 75%.

No abstract