Toward image quality assessment in mammography using model observers: Detection of a calcification‐like object

Purpose: Model observers (MOs) are of interest in the field of medical imaging to assess image quality. However, before procedures using MOs can be proposed in quality control guidelines for mammography systems, we need to know whether MOs are sensitive to changes in image quality and correlations in background structure. Therefore, as a proof of principle, in this study human and model observer (MO) performance are compared for the detection of calcification‐like objects using different background structures and image quality levels of unprocessed mammography images. Method: Three different phantoms, homogeneous polymethyl methacrylate, BR3D slabs with swirled patterns (CIRS, Norfolk, VA, USA), and a prototype anthropomorphic breast phantom (Institute of Medical Physics and Radiation Protection, Technische Hochschule Mittelhessen, Germany) were imaged on an Amulet Innovality (FujiFilm, Tokyo, Japan) mammographic X‐ray unit. Because the complexities of the structures of these three phantoms were different and not optimized to match the characteristics of real mammographic images, image processing was not applied in this study. In addition, real mammograms were acquired on the same system. Regions of interest (ROIs) were extracted from each image. In half of the ROIs, a 0.25‐mm diameter disk was inserted at four different contrast levels to represent a calcification‐like object. Each ROI was then modified, so four image qualities relevant for mammography were simulated. The signal‐present and signal‐absent ROIs were evaluated by a non‐pre‐whitening model observer with eye filter (NPWE) and a channelized Hotelling observer (CHO) using dense difference of Gaussian channels. The ROIs were also evaluated by human observers in a two alternative forced choice experiment. Detectability results for the human and model observer experiments were correlated using a mixed‐effect regression model. Threshold disk contrasts for human and predicted human observer performance based on the NPWE MO and CHO were estimated. Results: Global trends in threshold contrast were similar for the different background structures, but absolute contrast threshold levels differed. Contrast thresholds tended to be lower in ROIs from simple phantoms compared with ROIs from real mammographic images. The correlation between human and model observer performance was not affected by the range of image quality levels studied. Conclusions: The correlation between human and model observer performance does not depend on image quality. This is a promising outcome for the use of model observers in image quality analysis and allows for subsequent research toward the development of MO‐based quality control procedures and guidelines.

[1]  Kai Yang,et al.  Effect of slice thickness on detectability in breast CT using a prewhitened matched filter and simulated mass lesions. , 2012, Medical physics.

[2]  Matthew Kramer,et al.  R 2 STATISTICS FOR MIXED MODELS , 2005 .

[3]  Dev P Chakraborty,et al.  The relationship between cancer detection in mammography and image quality measurements. , 2016, Physica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics.

[4]  D R Dance,et al.  Can the channelized Hotelling observer including aspects of the human visual system predict human observer performance in mammography? , 2017, Physica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics.

[5]  Kristina Bliznakova,et al.  A novel simulation algorithm for soft tissue compression , 2007, Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing.

[6]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Efficiency of human visual signal discrimination. , 1981, Science.

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

[8]  Kenneth C. Young,et al.  Characterisation of Screen Detected and Simulated Calcification Clusters in Digital Mammograms , 2014, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[9]  F R Verdun,et al.  Image quality assessment in digital mammography: part II. NPWE as a validated alternative for contrast detail analysis , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[10]  Craig K. Abbey,et al.  Observer Models as a Surrogate to Perception Experiments , 2018, The Handbook of Medical Image Perception and Techniques.

[11]  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.

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

[13]  Brandon D Gallas,et al.  One-shot estimate of MRMC variance: AUC. , 2006, Academic radiology.

[14]  D R Dance,et al.  Comparison of the x-ray attenuation properties of breast calcifications, aluminium, hydroxyapatite and calcium oxalate , 2013, Physics in medicine and biology.

[15]  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.

[16]  I. Sechopoulos,et al.  Cupping artifact correction and automated classification for high-resolution dedicated breast CT images. , 2012, Medical physics.

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

[18]  Stephen J. Glick,et al.  Comparison of model and human observer performance in FFDM, DBT, and synthetic mammography , 2016, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[19]  A. Burgess,et al.  Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise. , 2001, Medical physics.

[20]  Walter Huda,et al.  How do lesion size and random noise affect detection performance in digital mammography? , 2006, Academic radiology.

[21]  K. Young,et al.  European protocol for the quality control of the physical and technical aspects of mammography screening 2 a Screen-film mammography 2 b Digital mammography , 1999 .

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

[23]  Dianne Georgian-Smith,et al.  Breast Imaging and Pathologic Correlations: A Pattern-Based Approach , 2014 .

[24]  Kyle J Myers,et al.  Toward objective and quantitative evaluation of imaging systems using images of phantoms. , 2006, Medical physics.

[25]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Assessing task performance in FFDM, DBT, and synthetic mammography using uniform and anthropomorphic physical phantoms. , 2016, Medical physics.

[26]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Comparison of signal to noise ratios from spatial and frequency domain formulations of nonprewhitening model observers in digital mammography. , 2012, Medical physics.

[27]  Isaac N. Bankman,et al.  Handbook of medical imaging , 2000 .

[28]  Peter G. J. Barten,et al.  Contrast sensitivity of the human eye and its e ects on image quality , 1999 .

[29]  D. Dance,et al.  Image resampling effects Image resampling effects in mammographic image simulation , 2011 .

[30]  Philip F. Judy,et al.  Effect of Toto circle and mammographic background size on detection performance , 2002, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[31]  Ioannis Sechopoulos,et al.  Dosimetric characterization of a dedicated breast computed tomography clinical prototype. , 2010, Medical physics.

[32]  Neil A. Macmillan,et al.  Detection theory: A user's guide, 2nd ed. , 2005 .

[33]  I. Sechopoulos,et al.  Characterization of the homogeneous tissue mixture approximation in breast imaging dosimetry. , 2012, Medical physics.

[34]  Kyle J. Myers,et al.  Incorporating Human Contrast Sensitivity in Model Observers for Detection Tasks , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[35]  Ingrid Reiser,et al.  Identification of simulated microcalcifications in white noise and mammographic backgrounds. , 2006, Medical physics.

[36]  H H Barrett,et al.  Human- and model-observer performance in ramp-spectrum noise: effects of regularization and object variability. , 2001, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

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

[38]  D R Dance,et al.  Can the non-pre-whitening model observer, including aspects of the human visual system, predict human observer performance in mammography? , 2016, Physica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics.

[39]  Oliver Diaz,et al.  Image simulation and a model of noise power spectra across a range of mammographic beam qualities. , 2014, Medical physics.

[40]  Takaaki Ito,et al.  A newly developed a-Se mammography flat panel detector with high-sensitivity and low image artifact , 2013, Medical Imaging.

[41]  R M Nishikawa,et al.  Task-based assessment of breast tomosynthesis: effect of acquisition parameters and quantum noise. , 2010, Medical physics.