Dual system approach to computer-aided detection of breast masses on mammograms

In this study, our purpose was to improve the performance of our mass detection system by using a new dual system approach which combines a computer-added detection (CAD) system optimized with "average" masses with another CAD system optimized with "subtle" masses. The two single CAD systems have similar image processing steps, which include prescreening, object segmentation, morphological and texture feature extraction, and false positive (FP) reduction by rule-based and linear discriminant analysis (LDA) classifiers. A feed-forward backpropagation artificial neural network was trained to merge the scores from the LDA classifiers in the two single CAD systems and differentiate true masses from normal tissue. For an unknown test mammogram, the two single CAD systems are applied to the image in parallel to detect suspicious objects. A total of three data sets were used for training and testing the systems. The first data set of 230 current mammograms, referred to as the average mass set, was collected from 115 patients. We also collected 264 mammograms, referred to as the subtle mass set, which were one to two years prior to the current exam from these patients. Both the average and the subtle mass sets were partitioned into two independent data sets in a cross validation training and testing scheme. A third data set containing 65 cases with 260 normal mammograms was used to estimate the FP marker rates during testing. When the single CAD system trained on the average mass set was applied to the test set with average masses, the FP marker rates were 2.2, 1.8, and 1.5 per image at the case-based sensitivities of 90%, 85%, and 80%, respectively. With the dual CAD system, the FP marker rates were reduced to 1.2, 0.9, and 0.7 per image, respectively, at the same case-based sensitivities. Statistically significant (P < 0.05) improvements on the free response receiver operating characteristic curves were observed when the dual system and the single system were compared using the test sets with either average masses or subtle masses. (c) 2006 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.