Biomedical subjects

Ruth Walsh

Publications and source records attributed to Ruth Walsh.

8 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Comparison of LCD and CRT displays based on efficacy for digital mammography.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To compare two display technologies, cathode ray tube (CRT) and liquid crystal display (LCD), in terms of diagnostic accuracy for several common clinical tasks in digital mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Simulated masses and microcalcifications were inserted into normal digital mammograms to produce an image set of 400 images. Images were viewed on one CRT and one LCD medical-quality display device by five experienced breast-imaging radiologists who rated the images using a categorical rating paradigm. The observer data were analyzed to determine overall classification accuracy, overall lesion detection accuracy, and accuracy for four specific diagnostic tasks: detection of benign masses, malignant masses, and microcalcifications, and discrimination of benign and malignant masses. RESULTS: Radiologists had similar overall classification accuracy (LCD: 0.83 +/- 0.01, CRT: 0.82 +/- 0.01) and lesion detection accuracy (LCD: 0.87 +/- 0.01, CRT: 0.85 +/- 0.01) on both displays. The difference in accuracy between LCD and CRT for the detection of benign masses, malignant masses, and microcalcifications, and discrimination of benign and malignant masses was -0.019 +/- 0.009, 0.020 +/- 0.008, 0.012 +/- 0.013, and 0.0094 +/- 0.011, respectively. Overall, the two displays did not exhibit any statistically significant difference (P > .05). CONCLUSION: This study explored the suitability of two different soft-copy displays for the viewing of mammographic images. It found that LCD and CRT displays offer similar clinical utility for mammographic tasks.

Breast Neoplasms↗

PubMed2006

Streaming detection for evaluation of indeterminate sonographic breast masses: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: Streaming detection is a novel sonography technique that uses ultrasonic energy to induce movement in cyst fluid that is detected on Doppler sonography. This pilot study evaluates the utility of streaming detection for differentiating cysts from solid masses in breast lesions that are indeterminate on sonography. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Thirty-nine lesions-11 simple cysts and seven solid masses (control group) and 21 masses with indeterminate findings for the diagnosis of a cyst versus a solid lesion (study group)-in 34 patients were evaluated using streaming detection. All lesions underwent cyst aspiration or biopsy (n = 35) or were diagnosed simple cysts (n = 4) on sonography. Lesion size and depth were recorded. Streaming detection software was placed on conventional sonography units. Acoustic pulses were focused on the lesion, and if fluid movement was generated, it was seen on the spectral Doppler display as velocity away from the transducer. Lesions were then aspirated or underwent biopsy, and the viscosity of the aspirated fluid was recorded. The sensitivity and specificity of the technique and the effect of cyst size, cyst depth, and fluid viscosity in diagnosing fluid-filled cysts were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 31 cysts and eight solid masses (seven benign, one carcinoma) were diagnosed in the study and control groups. Aspiration of indeterminate lesions resulted in 20 cysts and one solid mass. Lesions ranged in size from 4 to 47 mm and in depth from 4 to 29 mm. In the control group, streaming detection correctly showed nine of the 11 simple cysts (sensitivity, 82%; positive predictive value, 100%), and acoustic streaming was absent in all seven solid masses (specificity, 100%; negative predictive value, 78%). Of the indeterminate lesions, streaming detection allowed correct identification of 10 of 20 cysts (sensitivity, 50%; positive predictive value, 100%). Acoustic streaming was not detected in the one solid study group lesion. Neither cyst size or depth nor fluid viscosity had a significant effect on the ability to detect fluid. CONCLUSION: The streaming detection technique improved differentiation of cysts from solid masses in indeterminate lesions and has potential for reducing the number of recommended cyst aspirations for the diagnosis of indeterminate breast masses.

Adult↗

PubMed2005

The effects of gray scale image processing on digital mammography interpretation performance.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of three image-processing algorithms on diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography in comparison with conventional screen-film mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 201 cases consisting of nonprocessed soft copy versions of the digital mammograms acquired from GE, Fischer, and Trex digital mammography systems (1997-1999) and conventional screen-film mammograms of the same patients were interpreted by nine radiologists. The raw digital data were processed with each of three different image-processing algorithms creating three presentations-manufacturer's default (applied and laser printed to film by each of the manufacturers), MUSICA, and PLAHE-were presented in soft copy display. There were three radiologists per presentation. RESULTS: Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for GE digital mass cases was worse than screen-film for all digital presentations. The area under the receiver operating characteristic for Trex digital mass cases was better, but only with images processed with the manufacturer's default algorithm. Sensitivity for GE digital mass cases was worse than screen film for all digital presentations. Specificity for Fischer digital calcifications cases was worse than screen film for images processed in default and PLAHE algorithms. Specificity for Trex digital calcifications cases was worse than screen film for images processed with MUSICA. CONCLUSION: Specific image-processing algorithms may be necessary for optimal presentation for interpretation based on machine and lesion type.

Algorithms↗

PubMed2005

Comparison of recall and cancer detection rates for immediate versus batch interpretation of screening mammograms.

PURPOSE: To retrospectively compare recall and cancer detection rates between immediate and subsequent batch methods for interpretation of screening mammograms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval was obtained, and informed consent was waived. Retrospective analysis was performed for 8698 screening mammograms obtained between January 1 and October 31, 2001, which were interpreted either immediately (n = 4113) or subsequently with batch method (n = 4585). Data were collected from data reporting system and patient billing records. Patients with high risk factors were excluded; 3441 patients were in the immediate group, and 3932 were in the batch group. The two groups were compared with respect to age, breast density, and availability of comparison films with Wilcoxon rank sum test. Recall rates and cancer detection rates for each group were determined and compared with Pearson chi(2) test; false-negative rates were compared with Fischer exact test. RESULTS: A significant difference (P < .001) was noted in recall rates between immediate (18%) and batch (14%) groups; however, no significant difference (P = .7) was noted in cancer detection rates (immediate, 0.5%; batch, 0.4%). Mean age of patients was 56.8 years (age range, 21-96 years) in the immediate group and 56.2 years (age range 24-98 years) in the batch group (P = .02). Comparison of breast densities between groups indicates no statistically significant difference (P = .4). The batch group had significantly fewer comparison mammograms (3106 [79%]) available than the immediate group (2856 [83%]) (P < .001). There was no significant difference in false-negative rates between the immediate group (0.1%) and the batch group (0.1%) (P > .99). CONCLUSION: Immediate interpretation of screening mammograms resulted in a statistically significant increase in recalls and additional clinical work-ups of perceived abnormalities; however, no significant difference in cancer detection rate was detected between groups.

Adult↗

PubMed2004

Diagnostic accuracy of Fischer Senoscan Digital Mammography versus screen-film mammography in a diagnostic mammography population.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of the Fischer Senoscan Digital Mammography System with that of standard screen-film mammography in a population of women presenting for screening or diagnostic mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Enrollment of patients took place at six different breast-imaging centers between 1997 and 1999. A total of 247 cases were selected for inclusion in the final reader study. All known cancer cases were included (111) from all six participating sites representing 45% of the total cases. The remaining 136 cases (55%) were randomly selected from all available benign or negative cases from three of the six sites. A complete case consisted of both a (unilateral or bilateral) digital and screen-film mammogram of the same patient. Eight radiologists interpreted the cases in laser-printed digital and screen-film hardcopy formats. The study was designed to detect differences of 0.05 in the ROC area under the curve (AUC) between digital and screen-film radiologist interpretation performance. RESULTS: The average AUC for the Senoscan digital was 0.715 for the 8 readers. The average AUC for screen-film was 0.765. The difference AUC of -0.05 falls within the 95% confidence interval (-0.101, 0.002). The average sensitivity was 66% and specificity 67% for SenoScan full-field digital mammography. The average screen-film mammography sensitivity and specificity were 74% and 60%, respectively. CONCLUSION: No statistically significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between the Fischer Senoscan and screen-film mammography was detected in this study.

Adult↗

PubMed2003

Diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography in patients with dense breasts who underwent problem-solving mammography: effects of image processing and lesion type.

PURPOSE: To determine effects of lesion type (calcification vs mass) and image processing on radiologist's performance for area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity for detection of masses and calcifications with digital mammography in women with mammographically dense breasts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 201 women who underwent digital mammography at seven U.S. and Canadian medical centers. Three image-processing algorithms were applied to the digital images, which were acquired with Fischer, General Electric, and Lorad digital mammography units. Eighteen readers participated in the reader study (six readers per algorithm). Baseline values for reader performance with screen-film mammograms were obtained through the additional interpretation of 179 screen-film mammograms. A repeated-measures analysis of covariance allowing unequal slopes was used in each of the nine analyses (AUC, sensitivity, and specificity for each of three machines). Bonferroni correction was used. RESULTS: Although lesion type did not affect the AUC or sensitivity for Fischer digital images, it did affect specificity (P =.0004). For the General Electric digital images, AUC, sensitivity, and specificity were not affected by lesion type. For Lorad digital images, the results strongly suggested that lesion type affected AUC and sensitivity (P <.0001). None of the three image-processing methods tested affected the AUC, sensitivity, or specificity for the Fischer, General Electric, or Lorad digital images. CONCLUSION: Findings in this study indicate that radiologist's interpretation accuracy in interpreting digital mammograms depends on lesion type. Interpretation accuracy was not influenced by the image-processing method.

Area Under Curve↗

PubMed2003

Computer-aided detection (CAD) in screening mammography: sensitivity of commercial CAD systems for detecting architectural distortion.

OBJECTIVE: Computer-aided detection (CAD) algorithms have successfully revealed breast masses and microcalcifications on screening mammography. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the sensitivity of commercially available CAD systems for revealing architectural distortion, the third most common appearance of breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two commercially available CAD systems were used to evaluate screening mammograms obtained in 43 patients with 45 mammographically detected regions of architectural distortion. For each CAD system, we determined the sensitivity for revealing architectural distortion on at least one image of the two-view mammographic examination (case sensitivity) and for each individual mammogram (image sensitivity). Surgical biopsy results were available for each case of architectural distortion. RESULTS: Architectural distortion was deemed present and actionable by a panel of expert breast imagers in 80 views of the 45 cases. One CAD system detected distortion in 22 of 45 cases of distortion (case sensitivity, 49%) and in 30 of 80 mammograms (image sensitivity, 38%); it displayed 0.7 false-positive marks per image. Another CAD system identified distortion in 15 of 45 cases (case sensitivity, 33%) and 17 of 80 mammograms (image sensitivity, 21%); it displayed 1.27 false-positive marks per image. Sensitivity for malignancy-caused distortion was similar to or lower than sensitivity for all causes of distortion. CONCLUSION: Fewer than one half of the cases of architectural distortion were detected by the two most widely available CAD systems used for interpretations of screening mammograms. Considerable improvement in the sensitivity of CAD systems is needed for detecting this type of lesion. Practicing breast imagers who use CAD systems should remain vigilant for architectural distortion.

Adult↗

PubMed2002

Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display.

PURPOSE: To compare the speed and accuracy of the interpretations of digital mammograms by radiologists by using printed-film versus soft-copy display. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After being trained in interpretation of digital mammograms, eight radiologists interpreted 63 digital mammograms, all with old studies for comparison. All studies were interpreted by all readers in soft-copy and printed-film display, with interpretations of images in the same cases at least 1 month apart. Mammograms were interpreted in cases that included six biopsy-proved cancers and 20 biopsy-proved benign lesions, 20 cases of probably benign findings in patients who underwent 6-month follow-up, and 17 cases without apparent findings. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (A(z)), sensitivity, and specificity were calculated for soft-copy and printed-film display. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the speed of interpretation, but interpretations with soft-copy display were slightly faster. The differences in A(z), sensitivity, and specificity were not significantly different; A(z) and sensitivity were slightly better for interpretations with printed film, and specificity was slightly better for interpretations with soft copy. CONCLUSION: Interpretation with soft-copy display is likely to be useful with digital mammography and is unlikely to significantly change accuracy or speed.

Breast Diseases↗