Mammographic image quality assessment by a contrast-to-noise ratio for clinical images

Purpose: To test the association between contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) measurements made on digital mammograms (DM), human reader performance in a lesion detection task using the same images, and image quality (IQ) as predicted by phantom measurements. Methods: DM from 162 women were evaluated for their CNR using a novel metric for application on clinical images. The original unprocessed images were tested (100% dose), as well as the same images after processing to simulate a 50% and 25% relative dose level. IQ measurements from a CDMAM phantom images, as well as human reader calcification cluster detectability ratings on the clinical image set for the three treatments were used to provide ground truth for human lesion detection performance. Analysis was performed to test for association between DM image CNR at the three dose levels, the CDMAM measurements, and reader performance as quantified by a reader-averaged jack-knifed free response operating characteristic (JAFROC) figure of merit (FoM). Results: The clinical image CNR was strongly correlated with the JAFROC FoM and CDMAM threshold gold thicknesses (r=0.98, and r=0.99 @ 0.25 mm, r=0.94 @ 0.1 mm discs, respectively). On a per-image basis, strong associations between CNR and measures of beam quality and exposure were also found that indicate sensitivity to imaging technique factors while remaining independent of signal variations due to breast parenchyma. Conclusions: Using a clinical image CNR it is possible to objectively predict IQ in mammographic images. As such, this metric could provide a means to perform a practical continuous DM system performance monitoring.

[1]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Comparison of SNDR, NPWE Model and Human Observer Results for Spherical Densities and Microcalcifications in Real Patient Backgrounds for 2D Digital Mammography and Breast Tomosynthesis , 2014, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[2]  A. Gubern-Mérida,et al.  Automated Volumetric Mammographic Breast Density Measurements May Underestimate Percent Breast Density for High-density Breasts. , 2017, Academic radiology.

[3]  Ralph Highnam,et al.  Validation of noise estimation for a clinical contrast-to-noise ratio for digital mammographic imaging , 2018, Medical Imaging.

[4]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Tailoring automatic exposure control toward constant detectability in digital mammography. , 2015, Medical physics.

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

[6]  C. J. Kotre,et al.  Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol. , 2000, Physics in medicine and biology.

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

[8]  Ann-Katherine Carton,et al.  Anatomical noise in contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Part II. Dual-energy imaging. , 2013, Medical physics.

[9]  Development of a phantom to test fully automated breast density software - A work in progress. , 2017, Radiography.

[10]  K. Ng,et al.  Volumetric breast density measurement: sensitivity analysis of a relative physics approach. , 2016, The British journal of radiology.

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

[12]  Nico Karssemeijer,et al.  Volumetric Breast Density Estimation from Full-Field Digital Mammograms: A Validation Study , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[13]  Woutjan Branderhorst,et al.  Technical Note: Validation of two methods to determine contact area between breast and compression paddle in mammography , 2017, Medical physics.

[14]  D R Dance,et al.  Image processing can cause some malignant soft-tissue lesions to be missed in digital mammography images. , 2017, Clinical radiology.

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

[16]  Kenneth C. Young,et al.  Conversion of mammographic images to appear with the noise and sharpness characteristics of a different detector and x-ray system. , 2012, Medical physics.

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