Free-response receiver operating characteristic evaluation of lossy JPEG2000 and object-based set partitioning in hierarchical trees compression of digitized mammograms.

PURPOSE To assess the effects of two irreversible wavelet-based compression algorithms--Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) 2000 and object-based set partitioning in hierarchical trees (SPIHT)--on the detection of clusters of microcalcifications and masses on digitized mammograms. MATERIALS AND METHODS The use of the images in this retrospective image-collection study was approved by the institutional review board, and patient informed consent was not required. One hundred twelve mammographic images (28 with one or two clusters of microcalcifications, 19 with one mass, 17 with both abnormal findings, and 48 with normal findings) obtained in 60 women who ranged in age from 25 to 79 years were digitized and compressed at 40:1 and 80:1 by using the JPEG2000 and object-based SPIHT methods. Five experienced radiologists were asked to locate and rate clusters of microcalcifications and masses on the original and compressed images in a free-response receiver operating characteristic (FROC) data acquisition paradigm. Observer performance was evaluated with the jackknife FROC method. RESULTS The mean FROC figures of merit for detecting clusters of microcalcifications, masses, and both radiographic findings on uncompressed images were 0.80, 0.81, and 0.72, respectively. With object-based SPIHT 80:1 compression, the corresponding values were larger than the values for uncompressed images by 0.005, 0.009, and -0.005, respectively. The 95% confidence interval for the differences in figures of merit between compressed and uncompressed images was -0.039, 0.033 for the microcalcification finding; -0.055, 0.034 for the mass finding; and -0.039, 0.030 for both findings. Because each of these confidence intervals includes zero, no significant difference in detection accuracy between uncompressed and object-based SPIHT 80:1 compression was observed at a P value of 5%. The F test of the null hypothesis that all of the modes (uncompressed and four compressed modes) were equivalent yielded the following results: F = 0.255, P = .903 for the microcalcification finding; F = 0.340, P = .848 for the mass finding; and F = 0.122, P = .975 for both findings. CONCLUSION To within the accuracy of these measurements, lossy compression of digital mammographic data at 80:1 with JPEG2000 or the object-based SPIHT algorithm can be performed without decreasing the rate of detection of clusters of microcalcifications and masses.

[1]  K. Berbaum,et al.  Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. , 1992, Investigative radiology.

[2]  D P Chakraborty,et al.  Data analysis for detection and localization of multiple abnormalities with application to mammography. , 2000, Academic radiology.

[3]  Hee-Joung Kim,et al.  Clinical evaluation of JPEG2000 compression for digital mammography , 2002 .

[4]  William A. Pearlman,et al.  A new, fast, and efficient image codec based on set partitioning in hierarchical trees , 1996, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol..

[5]  O Jarlman,et al.  Digital Luminescence Mammography , 1991, Acta radiologica.

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

[7]  M Souto,et al.  Evaluation of an automated wavelet-based system dedicated to the detection of clustered microcalcifications in digital mammograms. , 2001, Medical informatics and the Internet in medicine.

[8]  K L Lam,et al.  Digitization requirements in mammography: effects on computer-aided detection of microcalcifications. , 1994, Medical physics.

[9]  R. G. Fraser,et al.  Digital and conventional chest imaging: a modified ROC study of observer performance using simulated nodules. , 1986, Radiology.

[10]  Stephen L Hillis,et al.  Power estimation for the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz method. , 2004, Academic radiology.

[11]  Pamela C. Cosman,et al.  Image quality in lossy compressed digital mammograms , 1997, Signal Process..

[12]  C E Metz,et al.  Quantification of failure to demonstrate statistical significance. The usefulness of confidence intervals. , 1993, Investigative radiology.

[13]  P. G. Tahoces,et al.  Computer-aided diagnosis: automatic detection of malignant masses in digitized mammograms. , 1998, Medical physics.

[14]  R F Wagner,et al.  Analysis of uncertainties in estimates of components of variance in multivariate ROC analysis. , 2001, Academic radiology.

[15]  M Kallergi,et al.  Evaluating the performance of detection algorithms in digital mammography. , 1999, Medical physics.

[16]  K L Lam,et al.  Image compression in digital mammography: effects on computerized detection of subtle microcalcifications. , 1996, Medical physics.

[17]  D. Chakraborty,et al.  Free-response methodology: alternate analysis and a new observer-performance experiment. , 1990, Radiology.

[18]  R E Hendrick,et al.  Rates and causes of disagreement in interpretation of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography in a diagnostic setting. , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[19]  David Gur,et al.  A comparison of two data analyses from two observer performance studies using Jackknife ROC and JAFROC. , 2005, Medical physics.

[20]  K Doi,et al.  Digital Mammography: ROC Studies of the Effects of Pixel Size and Unsharp-Mask Filtering on the Detection of Subtle Microcalcifications , 1987 .

[21]  Mary Scott Soo,et al.  Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display. , 2002, Radiology.

[22]  William A. Pearlman,et al.  Region-based wavelet coding methods for digital mammography , 2003, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[23]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Components-of-variance models for random-effects ROC analysis: the case of unequal variance structures across modalities. , 2001, Academic radiology.

[24]  W F Good,et al.  Detection of masses and clustered microcalcifications on data compressed mammograms: an observer performance study. , 2000, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[25]  Faouzi Kossentini,et al.  JasPer: a software-based JPEG-2000 codec implementation , 2000, Proceedings 2000 International Conference on Image Processing (Cat. No.00CH37101).

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

[27]  E. Likaki,et al.  Visually lossless threshold determination for microcalcification detection in wavelet compressed mammograms , 2003, European Radiology.

[28]  C E Metz,et al.  Variance-component modeling in the analysis of receiver operating characteristic index estimates. , 1997, Academic radiology.

[29]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Components-of-variance models and multiple-bootstrap experiments: an alternative method for random-effects, receiver operating characteristic analysis. , 2000, Academic radiology.

[30]  C A Roe,et al.  Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz method for statistical analysis of multireader, multimodality receiver operating characteristic data: validation with computer simulation. , 1997, Academic radiology.

[31]  Y H Chang,et al.  Applying computer-assisted detection schemes to digitized mammograms after JPEG data compression: an assessment. , 2000, Academic radiology.

[32]  Dev P Chakraborty,et al.  Observer studies involving detection and localization: modeling, analysis, and validation. , 2004, Medical physics.

[33]  G. J. S. Parkin,et al.  Direct digital mammography image acquisition , 1997, European Radiology.

[34]  R. Swensson.  Unified measurement of observer performance in detecting and localizing target objects on images. , 1996, Medical physics.

[35]  Sankararaman Suryanarayanan,et al.  A Perceptual Evaluation of JPEG 2000 Image Compression for Digital Mammography: Contrast-Detail Characteristics , 2004, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[36]  Majid Rabbani,et al.  An overview of the JPEG 2000 still image compression standard , 2002, Signal Process. Image Commun..

[37]  K. Berbaum,et al.  Satisfaction of search in diagnostic radiology. , 1989, Investigative radiology.

[38]  C. Metz,et al.  Visual detection and localization of radiographic images. , 1975, Radiology.

[39]  A. Manduca,et al.  Detection of subtle abnormalities on chest radiographs after irreversible compression. , 1998, Radiology.

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

[41]  A R Cowen,et al.  A clinical comparison between conventional and digital mammography utilizing computed radiography. , 1994, The British journal of radiology.