Automated differentiation of calcifications and their clusters on the mammography image: the outcomes of the computer aided diagnosis system module

INTRODUCTION: Previously we developed the computer aided detection system (CAD) for mammography MammCheck II that increased the detection rate of small and difficult to detect breast carcinomas (BC). However this system was not specifically designed for calcification detection and discrimination. On the other hand, the calcifications had no influence on the CAD capability to detect BCs that appeared as a focal lesions. OBJECTIVE: To develop the approach for automated differentiation of benign and suspicious calcifications on the mammography images and assess its clinical value. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For the developed software testing we used a set of 390 mammography images with calcifications of all possible types (278 images with benign and 112 images with suspicious calcifications). For classification we used linear support vector machine (SVM) model, that was trained on the set of 126 images (70 — benign and 56 — suspicious). We developed two SVM models: with no vascular calcification analysis and with it. Statistics: for comparison between the normally distributed samples we used the Student’s T-test, for non-normally distributed — Wilcoxon signed-rank or Chi-square tests. For correlation testing of normally distributed samples the Paerson coefficient was calculated, for non-normally distributed samples — the Spearman or Kendall correlation coefficients. The statistical significance corresponded to Р-values <0,05. RESULTS: During the testing of the first model version with no vascular calcification analysis we discovered the similarity of small early vascular calcifications and the suspicious ones. As a result this model falsely classified 14 of 23 (60.87%) vascular calcification clusters as suspicious. Therefore the model was improved. The final discrimination results for all calcification types (both benign and suspicious) obtained with the help of improved model were the following: true positive conclusions — 375/390 (96.15%), false positive conclusions — 15/390 (3.84%). In both cases when suspicious calcifications were classified as benign the wrong results were een only on one mammography view. At the same time, on another view the suspicious calcifications were correctly classified. DISCUSSION: During the CAD development it seems important not only mark the suspicious areas but also suppress false positive markings corresponding to the obviously benign lesions. However it is important during this operation not to suppress the true positive markings. Therefore such systems are inevitably characterized by a certain shift to decreased prognostic value of suspicious markings at the expense of the highest possible prognostic value of benign markings. In our viewpoint, the developed approach meets this requirement. Moreover, its integration into the CAD allows to suppress the markings of soft tissue lesions associated with typical benign calcifications, appeared on the previous processing steps. This capability may decrease the false positive rate of the main CAD module. CONCLUSION: The developed approach to benign and suspicious calcification discrimination (version with vascular calcification analysis) on the mammography image provided the sensitivity — 98.21%, specificity — 95.32%, negative predictive value (benign marking) — 99.25%, positive predictive value (suspicious marking) — 89.43%.