Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Computer-aided-detection marker value and breast density in the detection of invasive lobular carcinoma

  • Original article
  • Published:
International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Invasive Lobular Carcinoma (ILC) is frequently a mammographic and diagnostic dilemma; thus any additional information that CAD (Computer-Aided Detection) systems can give radiologists may be helpful. Our study was to evaluate the role of CAD numeric values as indicators of malignancy and the effect of breast density in the diagnosis of ILC.

Materials and methods

Eighty consecutive biopsy-proven ILC cases with CAD (ImageChecker®, Hologic | R2, Santa Clara, CA, versions 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, 5.0, 5.2) diagnosed between June 2002 and December 2004 were retrospectively reviewed. Data included: BIRADS® breast density, whether CAD marked the cancer at diagnosis year or years prior, and lesion type. Study mammograms underwent additional CAD scans (Image Checker® V5.3, V8.0, V8.1) to obtain a numeric value associated with each marker, low values represent increasingly suspicious features.

Results

CAD correctly marked 65% (52/80) of ILC cases, detection was found to decrease with increased breast density. Numeric values of CAD marks at sites of carcinoma showed median score of 171 (range 0 – 1121).

Conclusion

The CAD marker may potentially be used as an additional indicator of suspicious lesion features in all breast densities and higher likelihood that an area on the mammogram requires further investigation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tot T (2003) The diffuse type of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: morphology and prognosis. Virchows Arch 443:718–724

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Li C, Anderson B, Daling J, Moe R (2003) Trends in incidence rates of invasive lobular and ductal breast carcinoma. JAMA 289(11):1421–1424

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Arpino G, Bardou V, Clark G, Elledge R (2004) Infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast: tumor characteristics and clinical outcome. Breast Cancer Res 6(3):R149-R156

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Page DL, Anderson TJ (1987) Diagnostic histopathology of the breast. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, pp 219–226

    Google Scholar 

  5. Destounis SV, DiNitto P, Young W, Bonaccio E, Zuley M, Willison K (2004) Can computer-aided detection with double reading of screening mammograms help decrease the false-negative rate?. initial experience. Radiology 232:578–584

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Roehrig J, Chief Science Officer, R2 Technology, Inc.–A Hologic Company, Santa Clara (Personal Communication)

  7. R2 Corporation, Sunnyvale, CA, presentation “Human Response: Realizing the Potential of CAD”

  8. Destounis SV (2005) Retrospective study evaluating the accuracy of CAD in marking invasive lobular carcinoma. CARS Berlin, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  9. Roehrig J (2005) The Manufacturer’s Perspective. British J Radiol 78:S41–S45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Karssemeijer N, Otten J, Verbeek A, Groenewoud J, de Koning H, Hendricks J, Holland R (2003) Computer-aided detection versus independent double reading of masses on mammograms. Radiology 227:192–200

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Skaane P, Kshirsagar A, Young K, Stapleton S (2004) Comparison of CAD performance and independent double-reading in screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: results from the follow-up of the paired oslo I study, November 29, RSNA, Chicago

  12. Destounis SV, DiNitto P, Young W, Bonaccio E, Zuley M, Willison K (2007) Computer-aided detection in screening mammography: prospective double blinded study in a clinical practice. Radiology (in press)

  13. Mammography Quality Standard Act Regulations, Part 900—Mammography, Subpart B Quality Standards for Certification, www.fda.gov

  14. Elmore J, Barton M, Moceri V, Polk S, Arena P, Fletcher S (1998) Ten year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical brest examinations. NEJM 338(16):1089–1096

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Cupples T, Cunningham J, Reynolds J (2005) Impact of Computer-aided detection in a regional screening mammography program. AJR 185:944–950

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Brem R, Rapelyea J, Zisman G, Hoffmeister J, DeSimio M (2005) Evaluation of breast cancer with a computer-aided detection system by mammographic appearance and histopathology. Cancer 104(5):931–935

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Morton M, Whaley D, Brandt K, Amrami K (2006) Screening mammograms: interpretation with computer-aided detection–prospective evaluation. Radiology 239(2):375–383

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Dean J, Ilvento C (2006) Improved cancer detection using computer-aided detection with diagnostic and screening mammography: prospective study of 104 cancers. AJR 187:20–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Roubidoux M, Bailey J, Wray L, Helvie M (2004) Invasive cancers detected after breast cancer screening yielded a negative result: relationship of mammographic density to tumor prognostic factors. Radiology 230:42–48

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Aiello E, Buist D, White E, Porter P (2005) Association between mammographic breast density and breast cancer tumor characteristics. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 14(3):662–668

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mandelson M, Oestreicher N, Porter P, White D, Finder C, Taplin S, White E (2000) Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. JNCI 92(13):1081–1087

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Brem RF, Hoffmeister JW, Rapelyea JA, Zisman G, Mohtashemi K, Jindal G, DiSimio M, Rogers S (2005) Impact of breast density on computer-aided detection for breast cancer. AJR AM J Roentgenol 184(6):1968

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ho WT, Lam PW (2003) Clinical performance of computer assisted detection (CAD) system in detecting carcinoma in breasts of different densities. Clin Radiol. 58(2):133–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Roehrig J Chief Science Officer, R2 Technology, Inc. –A Hologic Company, Santa Clara, Personal Communication

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Elizabeth Wende Breast Clinic, 170 Sawgrass Drive, Rochester, NY, 14620, USA

    Stamatia Destounis & Sarah Hanson

  2. R2/Hologic, Inc., 2585 Augustine Drive, Santa Clara, CA, 95054, USA

    Jimmy Roehrig

Authors
  1. Stamatia Destounis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarah Hanson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jimmy Roehrig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stamatia Destounis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Destounis, S., Hanson, S. & Roehrig, J. Computer-aided-detection marker value and breast density in the detection of invasive lobular carcinoma. Int J CARS 2, 99–104 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-007-0074-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-007-0074-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation