Impact of two types of image processing on cancer detection in mammography

The impact of image processing on cancer detection is still a concern to radiologists and physicists. This work aims to evaluate the effect of two types of image processing on cancer detection in mammography. An observer study was performed in which six radiologists inspected 349 cases (a mixture of normal cases, benign lesions and cancers) processed with two types of image processing. The observers marked areas they were suspicious were cancers. JAFROC analysis was performed to determine if there was a significant difference in cancer detection between the two types of image processing. Cancer detection was significantly better with the standard setting image processing (flavor A) compared with one that provides enhanced image contrast (flavor B), p = 0.036. The image processing was applied to images of the CDMAM test object, which were then analysed using CDCOM. The threshold gold thickness measured with the CDMAM test object was thinner using flavor A than flavor B image processing. Since Flavor A was found to be superior in both the observer study and the measurements using the CDMAM phantom, this may indicate that measurements using the CDMAM correlate with change in cancer detection with different types of image processing.

[1]  K. C. Young,et al.  Effect of image processing version on detection of non-calcification cancers in 2D digital mammography imaging , 2013, Medical Imaging.

[2]  S. Ashley,et al.  The effect of Premium View post-processing software on digital mammographic reporting. , 2010, The British journal of radiology.

[3]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Contrast-detail comparison between unprocessed and processed CDMAM images , 2009, Medical Imaging.

[4]  Nico Karssemeijer,et al.  Increase in perceived case suspiciousness due to local contrast optimisation in digital screening mammography , 2011, European Radiology.

[5]  N. Karssemeijer,et al.  Determination of contrast-detail curves of mammography systems by automated image analysis 1 , 2005 .

[6]  Jing Xu,et al.  Comparison of tissue equalization, and premium view post-processing methods in full field digital mammography. , 2010, European journal of radiology.

[7]  P. T. Looney,et al.  The oncology medical image database (OMI-DB) , 2014, Medical Imaging.

[8]  Julie Cooke,et al.  QUALITY ASSURANCE GUIDELINES FOR BREAST CANCER SCREENING RADIOLOGY , 2005 .

[9]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: executive summary of AAPM TG18 report. , 2005, Medical physics.

[10]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Evaluation of clinical image processing algorithms used in digital mammography. , 2009, Medical physics.

[11]  Alistair Mackenzie,et al.  MedXViewer: an extensible web-enabled software package for medical imaging , 2014, Medical Imaging.

[12]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Effect of image quality on calcification detection in digital mammography. , 2012, Medical physics.

[13]  Julie Cooke,et al.  Breast cancer detection rates using four different types of mammography detectors , 2016, European Radiology.

[14]  Stephen L Hillis,et al.  Recent developments in the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz procedure for multireader ROC study analysis. , 2008, Academic radiology.

[15]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Evaluation of software for reading images of the CDMAM test object to assess digital mammography systems , 2008, SPIE Medical Imaging.