Evaluation of clinical image processing algorithms used in digital mammography
- PMID: 19378737
- DOI: 10.1118/1.3077121
Evaluation of clinical image processing algorithms used in digital mammography
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.
Similar articles
-
Comparison of visual grading and free-response ROC analyses for assessment of image-processing algorithms in digital mammography.Br J Radiol. 2012 Dec;85(1020):e1233-41. doi: 10.1259/bjr/22608279. Epub 2012 Jul 27. Br J Radiol. 2012. PMID: 22844032 Free PMC article.
-
The simulation of 3D microcalcification clusters in 2D digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis.Med Phys. 2011 Dec;38(12):6659-71. doi: 10.1118/1.3662868. Med Phys. 2011. PMID: 22149848
-
Impact of compressed breast thickness and dose on lesion detectability in digital mammography: FROC study with simulated lesions in real mammograms.Med Phys. 2016 Sep;43(9):5104. doi: 10.1118/1.4960630. Med Phys. 2016. PMID: 27587041
-
Detection of potential microcalcification clusters using multivendor for-presentation digital mammograms for short-term breast cancer risk estimation.Med Phys. 2019 Apr;46(4):1938-1946. doi: 10.1002/mp.13450. Epub 2019 Mar 7. Med Phys. 2019. PMID: 30801718 Free PMC article. Review.
-
A brief history of free-response receiver operating characteristic paradigm data analysis.Acad Radiol. 2013 Jul;20(7):915-9. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2013.03.001. Epub 2013 Apr 12. Acad Radiol. 2013. PMID: 23583665 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
A technique optimization protocol and the potential for dose reduction in digital mammography.Med Phys. 2010 Mar;37(3):962-9. doi: 10.1118/1.3276732. Med Phys. 2010. PMID: 20384232 Free PMC article.
-
Successes and challenges in extracting information from DICOM image databases for audit and research.Br J Radiol. 2023 Nov;96(1151):20230104. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20230104. Epub 2023 Sep 12. Br J Radiol. 2023. PMID: 37698251 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Digital zoom of the full-field digital mammogram versus magnification mammography: a systematic review.Eur Radiol. 2020 Aug;30(8):4223-4233. doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-06798-6. Epub 2020 Mar 28. Eur Radiol. 2020. PMID: 32222798 Free PMC article.
-
Comparison of the clinical performance of three digital mammography systems in a breast cancer screening programme.Br J Radiol. 2012 Aug;85(1016):1123-7. doi: 10.1259/bjr/29747759. Epub 2011 Nov 17. Br J Radiol. 2012. PMID: 22096222 Free PMC article.
-
A virtual imaging study of microcalcification detection performance in digital breast tomosynthesis: Patients versus 3D textured phantoms.Med Phys. 2025 Jun;52(6):3800-3814. doi: 10.1002/mp.17873. Epub 2025 May 8. Med Phys. 2025. PMID: 40344178 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical