The relationship between cancer detection in mammography and image quality measurements.

PURPOSE To investigate the relationship between image quality measurements and the clinical performance of digital mammographic systems. METHODS Mammograms containing subtle malignant non-calcification lesions and simulated malignant calcification clusters were adapted to appear as if acquired by four types of detector. Observers searched for suspicious lesions and gave these a malignancy score. Analysis was undertaken using jackknife alternative free-response receiver operating characteristics weighted figure of merit (FoM). Images of a CDMAM contrast-detail phantom were adapted to appear as if acquired using the same four detectors as the clinical images. The resultant threshold gold thicknesses were compared to the FoMs using a linear regression model and an F-test was used to find if the gradient of the relationship was significantly non-zero. RESULTS The detectors with the best image quality measurement also had the highest FoM values. The gradient of the inverse relationship between FoMs and threshold gold thickness for the 0.25mm diameter disk was significantly different from zero for calcification clusters (p=0.027), but not for non-calcification lesions (p=0.11). Systems performing just above the minimum image quality level set in the European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis resulted in reduced cancer detection rates compared to systems performing at the achievable level. CONCLUSIONS The clinical effectiveness of mammography for the task of detecting calcification clusters was found to be linked to image quality assessment using the CDMAM phantom. The European Guidelines should be reviewed as the current minimum image quality standards may be too low.

[1]  C. J. Kotre,et al.  The effect of background structure on the detection of low contrast objects in mammography. , 1998, The British journal of radiology.

[2]  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.

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

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

[5]  Patrice Heid,et al.  Comparison of direct digital mammography, computed radiography, and film-screen in the French national breast cancer screening program. , 2014, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

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

[7]  Sarah A. Edwards,et al.  Digital compared with screen-film mammography: performance measures in concurrent cohorts within an organized breast screening program. , 2013, Radiology.

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

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

[10]  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.

[11]  K C Young,et al.  Evaluation of Kodak DirectView Mammography Computerised Radiography System , 2005 .

[12]  Consumer Protection,et al.  European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition--summary document. , 2008, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[13]  Dev P. Chakraborty,et al.  Using image simulation to test the effect of detector type on breast cancer detection , 2014, Medical Imaging.

[14]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Does image quality matter? Impact of resolution and noise on mammographic task performance. , 2007, Medical physics.

[15]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Technical and clinical breast cancer screening performance indicators for computed radiography versus direct digital radiography , 2013, European Radiology.

[16]  D. DeLong,et al.  Digital mammography: effects of reduced radiation dose on diagnostic performance. , 2007, Radiology.

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

[18]  Kenneth C. Young,et al.  Mammographic Image Database (MIDB) and Associated Web-Enabled Software for Research , 2014, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

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

[20]  S. Moss,et al.  Pathological and mammographic prognostic factors for screen detected cancers in a multi-centre randomised, controlled trial of mammographic screening in women from age 40 to 48 years. , 2011, Breast.

[21]  Joel E. Gray,et al.  Grids Improve Mammography Contrast , 2004 .

[22]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  The effect of image processing on the detection of cancers in digital mammography. , 2014, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

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

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