» Articles » PMID: 26158052

Impact of Lesion Segmentation Metrics on Computer-aided Diagnosis/detection in Breast Computed Tomography

Overview
Specialty Radiology
Date 2015 Jul 10
PMID 26158052
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Evaluation of segmentation algorithms usually involves comparisons of segmentations to gold-standard delineations without regard to the ultimate medical decision-making task. We compare two segmentation evaluations methods-a Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) evaluation and a diagnostic classification task-based evaluation method using lesions from breast computed tomography. In our investigation, we use results from two previously developed lesion-segmentation algorithms [a global active contour model (GAC) and a global with local aspects active contour model]. Although similar DSC values were obtained (0.80 versus 0.77), we show that the global + local active contour (GLAC) model, as compared with the GAC model, is able to yield significantly improved classification performance in terms of area under the receivers operating characteristic (ROC) curve in the task of distinguishing malignant from benign lesions. [Area under the [Formula: see text] compared to 0.63, [Formula: see text]]. This is mainly because the GLAC model yields better detailed information required in the calculation of morphological features. Based on our findings, we conclude that the DSC metric alone is not sufficient for evaluating segmentation lesions in computer-aided diagnosis tasks.

Citing Articles

Relationship between computer segmentation performance and computer classification performance in breast CT: A simulation study using RGI segmentation and LDA classification.

Lee J, Nishikawa R, Reiser I, Boone J Med Phys. 2018; .

PMID: 29920684 PMC: 7935026. DOI: 10.1002/mp.13054.


Neutrosophic segmentation of breast lesions for dedicated breast computed tomography.

Lee J, Nishikawa R, Reiser I, Boone J J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2018; 5(1):014505.

PMID: 29541650 PMC: 5839418. DOI: 10.1117/1.JMI.5.1.014505.


Lack of agreement between radiologists: implications for image-based model observers.

Lee J, Nishikawa R, Reiser I, Zuley M, Boone J J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2017; 4(2):025502.

PMID: 28491908 PMC: 5414890. DOI: 10.1117/1.JMI.4.2.025502.


Optimal reconstruction and quantitative image features for computer-aided diagnosis tools for breast CT.

Lee J, Nishikawa R, Reiser I, Boone J Med Phys. 2017; 44(5):1846-1856.

PMID: 28295405 PMC: 5467730. DOI: 10.1002/mp.12214.


Local curvature analysis for classifying breast tumors: Preliminary analysis in dedicated breast CT.

Lee J, Nishikawa R, Reiser I, Boone J, Lindfors K Med Phys. 2015; 42(9):5479-89.

PMID: 26328996 PMC: 4552705. DOI: 10.1118/1.4928479.

References
1.
Linguraru M, Pura J, Chowdhury A, Summers R . Multi-organ segmentation from multi-phase abdominal CT via 4D graphs using enhancement, shape and location optimization. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv. 2010; 13(Pt 3):89-96. PMC: 3005190. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-15711-0_12. View

2.
Warfield S, Zou K, Wells W . Simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE): an algorithm for the validation of image segmentation. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2004; 23(7):903-21. PMC: 1283110. DOI: 10.1109/TMI.2004.828354. View

3.
Zou K, Warfield S, Bharatha A, Tempany C, Kaus M, Haker S . Statistical validation of image segmentation quality based on a spatial overlap index. Acad Radiol. 2004; 11(2):178-89. PMC: 1415224. DOI: 10.1016/s1076-6332(03)00671-8. View

4.
Sechopoulos I . A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part II. Image reconstruction, processing and analysis, and advanced applications. Med Phys. 2013; 40(1):014302. PMC: 3548896. DOI: 10.1118/1.4770281. View

5.
Reiser I, Nishikawa R, Giger M, Boone J, Lindfors K, Yang K . Automated detection of mass lesions in dedicated breast CT: a preliminary study. Med Phys. 2012; 39(2):866-73. PMC: 3277607. DOI: 10.1118/1.3678991. View