Literature DB >> 19378737

Evaluation of clinical image processing algorithms used in digital mammography.

Federica Zanca1, Jurgen Jacobs, Chantal Van Ongeval, Filip Claus, Valerie Celis, Catherine Geniets, Veerle Provost, Herman Pauwels, Guy Marchal, Hilde Bosmans.   

Abstract

Screening is the only proven approach to reduce the mortality of breast cancer, but significant numbers of breast cancers remain undetected even when all quality assurance guidelines are implemented. With the increasing adoption of digital mammography systems, image processing may be a key factor in the imaging chain. Although to our knowledge statistically significant effects of manufacturer-recommended image processings have not been previously demonstrated, the subjective experience of our radiologists, that the apparent image quality can vary considerably between different algorithms, motivated this study. This article addresses the impact of five such algorithms on the detection of clusters of microcalcifications. A database of unprocessed (raw) images of 200 normal digital mammograms, acquired with the Siemens Novation DR, was collected retrospectively. Realistic simulated microcalcification clusters were inserted in half of the unprocessed images. All unprocessed images were subsequently processed with five manufacturer-recommended image processing algorithms (Agfa Musica 1, IMS Raffaello Mammo 1.2, Sectra Mamea AB Sigmoid, Siemens OPVIEW v2, and Siemens OPVIEW v1). Four breast imaging radiologists were asked to locate and score the clusters in each image on a five point rating scale. The free-response data were analyzed by the jackknife free-response receiver operating characteristic (JAFROC) method and, for comparison, also with the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) method. JAFROC analysis revealed highly significant differences between the image processings (F = 8.51, p < 0.0001), suggesting that image processing strongly impacts the detectability of clusters. Siemens OPVIEW2 and Siemens OPVIEW1 yielded the highest and lowest performances, respectively. ROC analysis of the data also revealed significant differences between the processing but at lower significance (F = 3.47, p = 0.0305) than JAFROC. Both statistical analysis methods revealed that the same six pairs of modalities were significantly different, but the JAFROC confidence intervals were about 32% smaller than ROC confidence intervals. This study shows that image processing has a significant impact on the detection of microcalcifications in digital mammograms. Objective measurements, such as described here, should be used by the manufacturers to select the optimal image processing algorithm.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19378737     DOI: 10.1118/1.3077121

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  21 in total

1.  Comparison of the clinical performance of three digital mammography systems in a breast cancer screening programme.

Authors:  E Keavey; N Phelan; A M O'Connell; F Flanagan; A O'Doherty; A Larke; A M Connors
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-11-17       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  A technique optimization protocol and the potential for dose reduction in digital mammography.

Authors:  Nicole T Ranger; Joseph Y Lo; Ehsan Samei
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Signal template generation from acquired images for model observer-based image quality analysis in mammography.

Authors:  Christiana Balta; Ramona W Bouwman; Wouter J H Veldkamp; Mireille J M Broeders; Ioannis Sechopoulos; Ruben E van Engen
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2018-09-08

4.  A modified undecimated discrete wavelet transform based approach to mammographic image denoising.

Authors:  Eri Matsuyama; Du-Yih Tsai; Yongbum Lee; Masaki Tsurumaki; Noriyuki Takahashi; Haruyuki Watanabe; Hsian-Min Chen
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 4.056

5.  Correlation of free-response and receiver-operating-characteristic area-under-the-curve estimates: results from independently conducted FROC∕ROC studies in mammography.

Authors:  Federica Zanca; Stephen L Hillis; Filip Claus; Chantal Van Ongeval; Valerie Celis; Veerle Provoost; Hong-Jun Yoon; Hilde Bosmans
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Comparison of visual grading and free-response ROC analyses for assessment of image-processing algorithms in digital mammography.

Authors:  F Zanca; C Van Ongeval; F Claus; J Jacobs; R Oyen; H Bosmans
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-07-27       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Consistency of methods for analysing location-specific data.

Authors:  F Zanca; D P Chakraborty; G Marchal; H Bosmans
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2010-02-16       Impact factor: 0.972

8.  Effect of image quality on calcification detection in digital mammography.

Authors:  Lucy M Warren; Alistair Mackenzie; Julie Cooke; Rosalind M Given-Wilson; Matthew G Wallis; Dev P Chakraborty; David R Dance; Hilde Bosmans; Kenneth C Young
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  The relationship between cancer detection in mammography and image quality measurements.

Authors:  Alistair Mackenzie; Lucy M Warren; Matthew G Wallis; Rosalind M Given-Wilson; Julie Cooke; David R Dance; Dev P Chakraborty; Mark D Halling-Brown; Padraig T Looney; Kenneth C Young
Journal:  Phys Med       Date:  2016-04-06       Impact factor: 2.685

10.  Virtual clinical trial to compare cancer detection using combinations of 2D mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic 2D imaging.

Authors:  Alistair Mackenzie; Emma L Thomson; Melissa Mitchell; Premkumar Elangovan; Chantal van Ongeval; Lesley Cockmartin; Lucy M Warren; Louise S Wilkinson; Matthew G Wallis; Rosalind M Given-Wilson; David R Dance; Kenneth C Young
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-07-30       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.