Literature DB >> 15702336

Evaluating the effect of a wavelet enhancement method in characterization of simulated lesions embedded in dense breast parenchyma.

L Costaridou1, S Skiadopoulos, P Sakellaropoulos, E Likaki, C P Kalogeropoulou, G Panayiotakis.   

Abstract

Presence of dense parenchyma in mammographic images masks lesions resulting in either missed detections or mischaracterizations, thus decreasing mammographic sensitivity and specificity. The aim of this study is evaluating the effect of a wavelet enhancement method on dense parenchyma for a lesion contour characterization task, using simulated lesions. The method is recently introduced, based on a two-stage process, locally adaptive denoising by soft-thresholding and enhancement by linear stretching. Sixty simulated low-contrast lesions of known image characteristics were generated and embedded in dense breast areas of normal mammographic images selected from the DDSM database. Evaluation was carried out by an observer performance comparative study between the processed and initial images. The task for four radiologists was to classify each simulated lesion with respect to contour sharpness/unsharpness. ROC analysis was performed. Combining radiologists' responses, values of the area under ROC curve (Az) were 0.93 (95% CI 0.89, 0.96) and 0.81 (CI 0.75, 0.86) for processed and initial images, respectively. This difference in Az values was statistically significant (Student's t-test, P<0.05), indicating the effectiveness of the enhancement method. The specific wavelet enhancement method should be tested for lesion contour characterization tasks in softcopy-based mammographic display environment using naturally occurring pathological lesions and normal cases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15702336     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-005-2640-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  21 in total

1.  Comparing the performance of mammographic enhancement algorithms: a preference study.

Authors:  R Sivaramakrishna; N A Obuchowski; W A Chilcote; G Cardenosa; K A Powell
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Improving the detection of simulated masses in mammograms through two different image-processing techniques.

Authors:  B M Hemminger; S Zong; K E Muller; C S Coffey; M C DeLuca; R E Johnston; E D Pisano
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  Mammographic characteristics of 115 missed cancers later detected with screening mammography and the potential utility of computer-aided detection.

Authors:  R L Birdwell; D M Ikeda; K F O'Shaughnessy; E A Sickles
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Simulating the mammographic appearance of circumscribed lesions.

Authors:  S Skiadopoulos; L Costaridou; C P Kalogeropoulou; E Likaki; L Livos; G Panayiotakis
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2002-09-24       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  A wavelet-based spatially adaptive method for mammographic contrast enhancement.

Authors:  P Sakellaropoulos; L Costaridou; G Panayiotakis
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2003-03-21       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis: basic principles and applications in radiology.

Authors:  A R van Erkel; P M Pattynama
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 3.528

7.  Computer-aided diagnosis of mammographic microcalcification clusters.

Authors:  Maria Kallergi
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography in patients with dense breasts who underwent problem-solving mammography: effects of image processing and lesion type.

Authors:  Elodia B Cole; Etta D Pisano; Emily O Kistner; Keith E Muller; Marylee E Brown; Stephen A Feig; Roberta A Jong; Andrew D A Maidment; Melinda J Staiger; Cherie M Kuzmiak; Rita I Freimanis; Nadine Lesko; Eric L Rosen; Ruth Walsh; Margaret Williford; M Patricia Braeuning
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography.

Authors:  R E Bird; T W Wallace; B C Yankaskas
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program.

Authors:  E L Thurfjell; K A Lernevall; A A Taube
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  2 in total

1.  Can electronic zoom replace magnification in mammography? A comparative Monte Carlo study.

Authors:  M Koutalonis; H Delis; A Pascoal; G Spyrou; L Costaridou; G Panayiotakis
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Figure of image quality and information capacity in digital mammography.

Authors:  Christos M Michail; Nektarios E Kalyvas; Ioannis G Valais; Ioannis P Fudos; George P Fountos; Nikos Dimitropoulos; Grigorios Koulouras; Dionisis Kandris; Maria Samarakou; Ioannis S Kandarakis
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2014-05-08       Impact factor: 3.411

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.