James G Mainprize1, Olivier Alonzo-Proulx1, Roberta A Jong2, Martin J Yaffe3. 1. Physical Sciences, Sunnybrook Research Institute, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4N 3M5, Canada. 2. Department of Medical Imaging, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4N 3M5, Canada. 3. Physical Sciences, Sunnybrook Research Institute, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4N 3M5, Canada and Department of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4N 3M5, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: High mammographic density is known to be associated with decreased sensitivity of mammography. Recent changes in the BI-RADS density assessment address the effect of masking by densities, but the BI-RADS assessment remains qualitative and achieves only moderate agreement between radiologists. An automated, quantitative algorithm that estimates the likelihood of masking of simulated masses in a mammogram by dense tissue has been developed. The algorithm considers both the effects of loss of contrast due to density and the distracting texture or appearance of dense tissue. METHODS: A local detectability (dL) map is created by tessellating the mammograms into overlapping regions of interest (ROIs), for which the detectability by a non-prewhitening observer is computed using local estimates of the noise power spectrum and volumetric breast density (VBD). The dL calculation was validated in a 4-alternative forced-choice observer study on the ROIs of 150 craniocaudal digital mammograms. The dL metric was compared against the inverse threshold contrast, (ΔμT)(-1) from the observer study, the anatomic noise parameter β, the radiologist's BI-RADS density category, and a validated measure of VBD (Cumulus). RESULTS: The mean dL had a high correlation of r = 0.915 and r = 0.699 with (ΔμT)(-1) in the computerized and human observer study, respectively. In comparison, the local VBD estimate had a low correlation of 0.538 with (ΔμT)(-1). The mean dL had a correlation of 0.663, 0.835, and 0.696 with BI-RADS density, β, and Cumulus VBD, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed dL metric may be useful in characterizing the potential for lesion masking by dense tissue. Because it uses information about the anatomic noise or tissue appearance, it is more closely linked to lesion detectability than VBD metrics.
PURPOSE: High mammographic density is known to be associated with decreased sensitivity of mammography. Recent changes in the BI-RADS density assessment address the effect of masking by densities, but the BI-RADS assessment remains qualitative and achieves only moderate agreement between radiologists. An automated, quantitative algorithm that estimates the likelihood of masking of simulated masses in a mammogram by dense tissue has been developed. The algorithm considers both the effects of loss of contrast due to density and the distracting texture or appearance of dense tissue. METHODS: A local detectability (dL) map is created by tessellating the mammograms into overlapping regions of interest (ROIs), for which the detectability by a non-prewhitening observer is computed using local estimates of the noise power spectrum and volumetric breast density (VBD). The dL calculation was validated in a 4-alternative forced-choice observer study on the ROIs of 150 craniocaudal digital mammograms. The dL metric was compared against the inverse threshold contrast, (ΔμT)(-1) from the observer study, the anatomic noise parameter β, the radiologist's BI-RADS density category, and a validated measure of VBD (Cumulus). RESULTS: The mean dL had a high correlation of r = 0.915 and r = 0.699 with (ΔμT)(-1) in the computerized and human observer study, respectively. In comparison, the local VBD estimate had a low correlation of 0.538 with (ΔμT)(-1). The mean dL had a correlation of 0.663, 0.835, and 0.696 with BI-RADS density, β, and Cumulus VBD, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed dL metric may be useful in characterizing the potential for lesion masking by dense tissue. Because it uses information about the anatomic noise or tissue appearance, it is more closely linked to lesion detectability than VBD metrics.
Authors: Benjamin Hinton; Lin Ma; Amir Pasha Mahmoudzadeh; Serghei Malkov; Bo Fan; Heather Greenwood; Bonnie Joe; Vivian Lee; Fredrik Strand; Karla Kerlikowske; John Shepherd Journal: Med Phys Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Benjamin Hinton; Lin Ma; Amir Pasha Mahmoudzadeh; Serghei Malkov; Bo Fan; Heather Greenwood; Bonnie Joe; Vivian Lee; Karla Kerlikowske; John Shepherd Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2019-06-22 Impact factor: 3.909
Authors: Fredrik Strand; Edward Azavedo; Roxanna Hellgren; Keith Humphreys; Mikael Eriksson; John Shepherd; Per Hall; Kamila Czene Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2019-01-22 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Ehsan Abadi; William P Segars; Benjamin M W Tsui; Paul E Kinahan; Nick Bottenus; Alejandro F Frangi; Andrew Maidment; Joseph Lo; Ehsan Samei Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2020-04-11