Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 7, 2026

Clinical Imaging of Microwave Mammography
Published on: November 14, 2025
Breast masses: computer-aided diagnosis with serial mammograms
Lubomir Hadjiiski1, Berkman Sahiner, Mark A Helvie
1Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Medical Center, CGC B2102, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0904, USA. lhadjisk@umich.edu
Purpose:
To retrospectively evaluate effects of computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) involving an interval change classifier (which uses interval change information extracted from prior and current mammograms and estimates a malignancy rating) on radiologists' accuracy in characterizing masses on two-view serial mammograms as malignant or benign.
Materials And Methods:
The data collection protocol had institutional review board approval. Patient informed consent was waived for this HIPAA-compliant retrospective study. Ninety temporal pairs of two-view serial mammograms (depicting 47 malignant and 43 benign biopsy-proved masses) were obtained from 68 patient files and were digitized. Biopsy was the reference standard. Eight Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992-accredited radiologists and two breast imaging fellows assessed digitized two-view temporal pairs (in preselected regions of interest only) by estimating likelihood of malignancy and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category without and with CAD. Observers' rating data were analyzed with Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz (DBM) multireader multicase method. Statistical significance of differences was estimated with the DBM method and Student two-tailed paired t test.
Results:
Average area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for likelihood of malignancy across the 10 observers was 0.83 (range, 0.74-0.88) without CAD and improved to 0.87 (range, 0.80-0.92) with CAD (P < .05). The average partial area index above a sensitivity of 0.90 for likelihood of malignancy was 0.35 (range, 0.13-0.54) without CAD and 0.49 (range, 0.18-0.73) with CAD--a nonsignificant improvement (P = .11). For BI-RADS assessment, it was estimated that with CAD, six radiologists would correctly recommend additional biopsies for malignant masses (range, 4.3%-10.6%) and five would correctly recommend reduction of biopsy (ie, fewer biopsies) for benign masses (range, 2.3%-9.3%). However, five radiologists would incorrectly recommend additional biopsy for benign masses (range, 2.3%-14.0%), and one would incorrectly recommend reduction of biopsy (4.3%).
Conclusion:
CAD involving interval change analysis of preselected regions of interest can significantly improve radiologists' accuracy in classifying masses on digitized screen-film mammograms as malignant or benign.

