Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms: a quantitative assessment

This study objectively evaluates the similarity between standard full-field digital mammograms and two-dimensional synthesized digital mammograms (2DSM) in a cohort of women undergoing mammography. Under an institutional review board-approved data collection protocol, we retrospectively analyzed 407 women with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) examinations performed from September 1, 2014, through February 29, 2016. Both FFDM and 2DSM images were used for the analysis, and 3216 available craniocaudal (CC) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) view mammograms altogether were included in the dataset. We analyzed the mammograms using a fully automated algorithm that computes 152 structural similarity, texture, and mammographic density-based features. We trained and developed two different global mammographic image feature analysis-based breast cancer detection schemes for 2DSM and FFDM images, respectively. The highest structural similarity features were obtained on the coarse Weber Local Descriptor differential excitation texture feature component computed on the CC view images (0.8770) and MLO view images (0.8889). Although the coarse structures are similar, the global mammographic image feature-based cancer detection scheme trained on 2DSM images outperformed the corresponding scheme trained on FFDM images, with area under a receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) = 0.878 ± 0.034 and 0.756 ± 0.052, respectively. Consequently, further investigation is required to examine whether DBT can replace FFDM as a standalone technique, especially for the development of automated objective-based methods.

[1]  Omar S. Al-Kadi,et al.  Texture Analysis of Aggressive and Nonaggressive Lung Tumor CE CT Images , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[2]  S. Gavenonis,et al.  Clinical Performance of Synthesized Two-dimensional Mammography Combined with Tomosynthesis in a Large Screening Population. , 2017, Radiology.

[3]  E. Conant,et al.  Beyond breast density: a review on the advancing role of parenchymal texture analysis in breast cancer risk assessment , 2016, Breast Cancer Research.

[4]  Andriy I Bandos,et al.  Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images. , 2014, Radiology.

[5]  B. Zheng,et al.  Assessment of a Four-View Mammographic Image Feature Based Fusion Model to Predict Near-Term Breast Cancer Risk , 2015, Annals of Biomedical Engineering.

[6]  B. G. Ziedses des Plantes,et al.  Eine Neue Methode Zur Differenzierung in der Rontgenographie (Planigraphies) , 1932 .

[7]  Rangaraj M. Rangayyan,et al.  Gabor filters and phase portraits for the detection of architectural distortion in mammograms , 2006, Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing.

[8]  B. Keller,et al.  Agreement between Breast Percentage Density Estimations from Standard-Dose versus Synthetic Digital Mammograms: Results from a Large Screening Cohort Using Automated Measures. , 2017, Radiology.

[9]  Anders Tingberg,et al.  Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings , 2008, European Radiology.

[10]  Bo Kyoung Seo,et al.  Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammogram (2DSM) and conventional full-field digital mammogram (FFDM) for evaluation of breast cancer. , 2017, Clinical imaging.

[11]  S. Teo,et al.  A novel method of determining breast cancer risk using parenchymal textural analysis of mammography images on an Asian cohort , 2019, Physics in medicine and biology.

[12]  N. Boyd,et al.  The quantitative analysis of mammographic densities. , 1994, Physics in medicine and biology.

[13]  Per Skaane,et al.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Synthetic 2D Mammography versus Digital Mammography: Evaluation in a Population-based Screening Program. , 2018, Radiology.

[14]  Hong Liu,et al.  Development and Assessment of a New Global Mammographic Image Feature Analysis Scheme to Predict Likelihood of Malignant Cases , 2020, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[15]  E. Halpern,et al.  Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. , 2013, Radiology.

[16]  Ji Soo Choi,et al.  Comparison of synthetic and digital mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis or alone for the detection and classification of microcalcifications , 2018, European Radiology.

[17]  Andriy I Bandos,et al.  Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. , 2014, Radiology.

[18]  Nico Karssemeijer,et al.  One-view digital breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone modality for breast cancer detection: do we need more? , 2017, European Radiology.

[19]  Diagnostic value of the stand-alone synthetic image in digital breast tomosynthesis examinations , 2018, European Radiology.

[20]  L. Liberman,et al.  Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). , 2002, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[21]  Rangaraj M. Rangayyan,et al.  Analysis of Structural Similarity in Mammograms for Detection of Bilateral Asymmetry , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[22]  Hong Liu,et al.  A new approach to develop computer-aided detection schemes of digital mammograms , 2015, Physics in medicine and biology.

[23]  Hui Li,et al.  Relationships between computer-extracted mammographic texture pattern features and BRCA1/2mutation status: a cross-sectional study , 2014, Breast Cancer Research.

[24]  Manuela Durando,et al.  Comparison of synthetic mammography, reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis, and digital mammography: evaluation of lesion conspicuity and BI-RADS assessment categories , 2017, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[25]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  How does c-view image quality compare with conventional 2D FFDM? , 2016, Medical physics.

[26]  Leen-Kiat Soh,et al.  Texture analysis of SAR sea ice imagery using gray level co-occurrence matrices , 1999, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens..

[27]  Mary M. Galloway,et al.  Texture analysis using gray level run lengths , 1974 .

[28]  K. Kerlikowske,et al.  Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. , 1996, JAMA.

[29]  Andrew D. A. Maidment,et al.  Implementation of Synthesized Two-dimensional Mammography in a Population-based Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Program. , 2016, Radiology.

[30]  Eero P. Simoncelli,et al.  Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.

[31]  David Gur,et al.  Computerized assessment of tissue composition on digitized mammograms. , 2002, Academic radiology.

[32]  Eero P. Simoncelli,et al.  A Parametric Texture Model Based on Joint Statistics of Complex Wavelet Coefficients , 2000, International Journal of Computer Vision.

[33]  B. G. Ziedses des Plantes,et al.  EINE NEUE METHODE ZUR DIFFERENZIERUNG IN DER RÖNTGENOGRAPHIE (PLANIGRAPHIE) , 1932 .

[34]  David Gur,et al.  Prediction of near-term breast cancer risk based on bilateral mammographic feature asymmetry. , 2013, Academic radiology.

[35]  M. Kontos,et al.  The role of digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: a manufacturer- and metrics-specific analysis , 2019, Cancer management and research.

[36]  Matti Pietikäinen,et al.  IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PATTERN ANALYSIS AND MACHINE INTELLIGENCE, 2009, TPAMI-2008-09-0620 1 WLD: A Robust Local Image Descriptor , 2022 .

[37]  Zhou Wang,et al.  Complex Wavelet Structural Similarity: A New Image Similarity Index , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.

[38]  David Gur,et al.  Association Between Changes in Mammographic Image Features and Risk for Near-Term Breast Cancer Development , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[39]  E. DeLong,et al.  Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. , 1988, Biometrics.

[40]  Bin Zheng,et al.  Developing a new case based computer-aided detection scheme and an adaptive cueing method to improve performance in detecting mammographic lesions , 2017, Physics in medicine and biology.

[41]  S Marcelja,et al.  Mathematical description of the responses of simple cortical cells. , 1980, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[42]  Robert M. Haralick,et al.  Textural Features for Image Classification , 1973, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[43]  L. Philpotts,et al.  Advances in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis. , 2017, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.