How do lesion size and random noise affect detection performance in digital mammography?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES We investigated the effect of random noise and lesion size on detection performance in mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS Digital mammograms were obtained of an anthropomorphic breast phantom with and without simulated mass lesions. Digital versions of the mass lesions, ranging in size from 0.8 to 12 mm, were added back to the breast phantom image. Four alternate forced choice experiments were performed to determine the lesion contrast required to achieve a 92% correct lesion detection rate, denoted I92. Experiments were performed using identical phantom images and different versions of phantom images obtained using the same techniques but with different random noise patterns. RESULTS For lesions larger than 1 mm, the slope of the contrast detail curves was always positive. This behavior contrasts with conventional contrast-detail curves in uniform backgrounds in which the slope is approximately -0.5. There was no difference between twinned experiments and those obtained using different patterns of random noise for lesions greater than 1 mm. When the lesion size was reduced below 1 mm, the detection threshold increased indicating a deterioration of lesion detectability, and detection performance was significantly lower when random noise patterns were used. CONCLUSION Our results suggest that lesion detection is dominated by anatomical structure for lesions with a size >1 mm, but by random noise for submillimeter sized lesions.

[1]  Gary R Cutter,et al.  Optimization of technique factors for a silicon diode array full-field digital mammography system and comparison to screen-film mammography with matched average glandular dose. , 2003, Medical physics.

[2]  Andrzej Krol,et al.  Signal-to-noise ratio and radiation dose as a function of photon energy in mammography , 1998, Medical Imaging.

[3]  D. C. Barber,et al.  Medical Imaging-The Assessment of Image Quality , 1996 .

[4]  P F Judy,et al.  The Medical Image Perception Society. Key issues for image perception research. , 1998, Radiology.

[5]  L. Wagner,et al.  Analysis of variations in contrast-detail experiments. , 1984, Medical physics.

[6]  Sankararaman Suryanarayanan,et al.  A Perceptual Evaluation of JPEG 2000 Image Compression for Digital Mammography: Contrast-Detail Characteristics , 2003, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[7]  L L Fajardo,et al.  Contrast-detail detectability analysis: comparison of a digital spot mammography system and an analog screen-film mammography system. , 1997, Academic radiology.

[8]  A. Burgess Comparison of receiver operating characteristic and forced choice observer performance measurement methods. , 1995, Medical physics.

[9]  C. J. Kotre,et al.  The effect of background structure on the detection of low contrast objects in mammography. , 1998, The British journal of radiology.

[10]  David R. Dance,et al.  How do radiographic techniques affect mass lesion detection performance in digital mammography? , 2004, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[11]  F. Mettler,et al.  ROC and contrast detail image evaluation tests compared. , 1985, Radiology.

[12]  Walter Huda,et al.  Experimental investigation of the dose and image quality characteristics of a digital mammography imaging system. , 2003, Medical physics.

[13]  A. Rose,et al.  Vision: human and electronic , 1973 .

[14]  F. Thibault,et al.  Digital detectors for mammography: the technical challenges , 2004, European Radiology.

[15]  H. Kundel,et al.  Lesion conspicuity, structured noise, and film reader error. , 1976, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[16]  F R Verdun,et al.  Estimation of the noisy component of anatomical backgrounds. , 1999, Medical physics.

[17]  H L Kundel,et al.  Nodule detection with and without a chest image. , 1985, Investigative radiology.

[18]  R. Rangayyan Biomedical Image Analysis , 2004 .

[19]  Kerry T. Krugh,et al.  Microcalcification detectability for four mammographic detectors: flat-panel, CCD, CR, and screen/film). , 2002, Medical physics.

[20]  C. J. Kotre,et al.  The use of a contrast-detail test object in the optimization of optical density in mammography. , 1995, The British journal of radiology.

[21]  J H Siewerdsen,et al.  Generalized DQE analysis of radiographic and dual-energy imaging using flat-panel detectors. , 2005, Medical physics.

[22]  R. Aufrichtig,et al.  Comparison of low contrast detectability between a digital amorphous silicon and a screen-film based imaging system for thoracic radiography. , 1999, Medical physics.

[23]  A. Burgess,et al.  Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise. , 2001, Medical physics.

[24]  David R. Dance,et al.  Comparison of Objective and Subjective Methods to Assess Imaging Performance in Digital Mammography , 2003 .

[25]  K Faulkner,et al.  The contrast-detail behaviour of a photostimulable phosphor based computed radiography system. , 1994, Physics in medicine and biology.

[26]  E Samei,et al.  Detection of subtle lung nodules: relative influence of quantum and anatomic noise on chest radiographs. , 1999, Radiology.

[27]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Subtle lung nodules: influence of local anatomic variations on detection. , 2003, Radiology.

[28]  E. Krupinski,et al.  The importance of perception research in medical imaging. , 2000, Radiation medicine.

[29]  E. Grabbe,et al.  Magnification mammography: a comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for the detection of simulated small masses and microcalcifications , 2002, European Radiology.

[30]  R. Edward Hendrick,et al.  Mammography quality control manual , 1999 .

[31]  John M. Boone,et al.  Optimizing the x-ray photon energy for digital radiographic imaging systems , 2002, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[32]  R. Hendrick,et al.  Performance comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography in clinical practice. , 2002, Medical physics.

[33]  Srinivasan Vedantham,et al.  Flat-panel digital mammography system: contrast-detail comparison between screen-film radiographs and hard-copy images. , 2002, Radiology.

[34]  J. James,et al.  The current status of digital mammography. , 2004, Clinical radiology.