Digital mammography: comparison of adaptive and nonadaptive CAD methods for mass detection.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES The authors compared the performance of adaptive and nonadaptive computer-aided diagnostic (CAD) methods for breast mass detection with digital mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS Both adaptive and nonadaptive modular CAD methods employed recent advances in multiresolution and mutiorientation wavelet transforms for improved feature extraction. The nonadaptive method uses fixed parameters for the image preprocessing modules. The adaptive method, a new class of algorithms, adapts to image content by selecting parameters for the image preprocessing modules within a parameter range. Comparison of the two methods was performed for each individual CAD module with a region-of-interest (ROI) database containing all mass types and normal tissue. RESULTS Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis clearly demonstrated an improvement in performance for the three adaptive modules and a significant overall difference between the two methods. The average ROC area index (Az) values were 0.86 and 0.95 for the nonadaptive and adaptive methods, respectively. The corresponding P value is .0145. For a previously reported database of full mammographic images containing 50 abnormal cases with all mass types and 50 normal images, the adaptive CAD method had a sensitivity of 96% (1.71 false-positive results per image) compared with 89% (1.91 false-positive results per image) for the nonadaptive CAD method. CONCLUSION The adaptive CAD method demonstrated better performance. A study is in progress to determine the generalizability of the adaptive CAD method by applying it to larger retrospective image databases with different film digitizers.

[1]  W. Philip Kegelmeyer Evaluation of stellate lesion detection in a standard mammogram data set , 1993, Electronic Imaging.

[2]  D Brzakovic,et al.  An approach to automated detection of tumors in mammograms. , 1990, IEEE transactions on medical imaging.

[3]  Wei Qian,et al.  Tree-structured nonlinear filters in digital mammography , 1994, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[4]  Thrasyvoulos N. Pappas An adaptive clustering algorithm for image segmentation , 1992, IEEE Trans. Signal Process..

[5]  L P Clarke,et al.  Medical image databases for CAD applications in digital mammography: design issues. , 1997, Studies in health technology and informatics.

[6]  Baoyu Zheng,et al.  Computer assisted diagnosis for digital mammography , 1995 .

[7]  Vijay K. Jain,et al.  Markov random field for tumor detection in digital mammography , 1995, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[8]  Lihua Li,et al.  X-ray medical image processing using directional wavelet transform , 1996, 1996 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing Conference Proceedings.

[9]  Wei Qian,et al.  Wavelet-based neural network with fuzzy-logic adaptivity for nuclear image restoration , 1996 .

[10]  Nico Karssemeijer,et al.  Detection of stellate distortions in mammograms , 1996, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[11]  Wei Qian,et al.  Image feature extraction for mass detection in digital mammography: Influence of wavelet analysis , 1999 .

[12]  M. Giger,et al.  Analysis of spiculation in the computerized classification of mammographic masses. , 1995, Medical physics.

[13]  J. M. Pruneda,et al.  Computer-aided mammographic screening for spiculated lesions. , 1994, Radiology.

[14]  L W Bassett,et al.  Breast cancer detection: one versus two views. , 1987, Radiology.

[15]  Laurence P. Clarke,et al.  Digitized mammogram standardization for display and CAD , 1998, Medical Imaging.

[16]  L P Clarke,et al.  Digital mammography: M-channel quadrature mirror filters (QMFs) for microcalcification extraction. , 1994, Computerized medical imaging and graphics : the official journal of the Computerized Medical Imaging Society.

[17]  Baoyu Zheng,et al.  Application of wavelet transform for image enhancement in medical imaging , 1994 .

[18]  N. Petrick,et al.  Computer-aided classification of mammographic masses and normal tissue: linear discriminant analysis in texture feature space. , 1995, Physics in medicine and biology.

[19]  E A Sickles,et al.  Baseline screening mammography: one vs two views per breast. , 1986, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[20]  L P Clarke,et al.  Digital mammography: computer-assisted diagnosis method for mass detection with multiorientation and multiresolution wavelet transforms. , 1997, Academic radiology.

[21]  D P Chakraborty,et al.  Maximum likelihood analysis of free-response receiver operating characteristic (FROC) data. , 1989, Medical physics.

[22]  P. Undrill,et al.  The use of texture analysis to delineate suspicious masses in mammography. , 1995, Physics in medicine and biology.