Effect of image quality on calcification detection in digital mammography.

PURPOSE This study aims to investigate if microcalcification detection varies significantly when mammographic images are acquired using different image qualities, including: different detectors, dose levels, and different image processing algorithms. An additional aim was to determine how the standard European method of measuring image quality using threshold gold thickness measured with a CDMAM phantom and the associated limits in current EU guidelines relate to calcification detection. METHODS One hundred and sixty two normal breast images were acquired on an amorphous selenium direct digital (DR) system. Microcalcification clusters extracted from magnified images of slices of mastectomies were electronically inserted into half of the images. The calcification clusters had a subtle appearance. All images were adjusted using a validated mathematical method to simulate the appearance of images from a computed radiography (CR) imaging system at the same dose, from both systems at half this dose, and from the DR system at quarter this dose. The original 162 images were processed with both Hologic and Agfa (Musica-2) image processing. All other image qualities were processed with Agfa (Musica-2) image processing only. Seven experienced observers marked and rated any identified suspicious regions. Free response operating characteristic (FROC) and ROC analyses were performed on the data. The lesion sensitivity at a nonlesion localization fraction (NLF) of 0.1 was also calculated. Images of the CDMAM mammographic test phantom were acquired using the automatic setting on the DR system. These images were modified to the additional image qualities used in the observer study. The images were analyzed using automated software. In order to assess the relationship between threshold gold thickness and calcification detection a power law was fitted to the data. RESULTS There was a significant reduction in calcification detection using CR compared with DR: the alternative FROC (AFROC) area decreased from 0.84 to 0.63 and the ROC area decreased from 0.91 to 0.79 (p < 0.0001). This corresponded to a 30% drop in lesion sensitivity at a NLF equal to 0.1. Detection was also sensitive to the dose used. There was no significant difference in detection between the two image processing algorithms used (p > 0.05). It was additionally found that lower threshold gold thickness from CDMAM analysis implied better cluster detection. The measured threshold gold thickness passed the acceptable limit set in the EU standards for all image qualities except half dose CR. However, calcification detection varied significantly between image qualities. This suggests that the current EU guidelines may need revising. CONCLUSIONS Microcalcification detection was found to be sensitive to detector and dose used. Standard measurements of image quality were a good predictor of microcalcification cluster detection.

[1]  Development and validation of a simulation procedure to study the visibility of micro calcifications in digital mammograms. , 2003, Medical physics.

[2]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Software Framework for Simulating Clusters of Microcalcifications in Digital Mammography , 2010, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[3]  Takayoshi Uematsu,et al.  Detection of masses and calcifications by soft-copy reading: comparison of two postprocessing algorithms for full-field digital mammography , 2009, Japanese Journal of Radiology.

[4]  F Zanca,et al.  The relationship between the attenuation properties of breast microcalcifications and aluminum. , 2010, Physics in medicine and biology.

[5]  Christiane Kulinna-Cosentini,et al.  Image quality, lesion detection, and diagnostic efficacy in digital mammography: full-field digital mammography versus computed radiography-based mammography using digital storage phosphor plates. , 2008, European journal of radiology.

[6]  Constantine Gatsonis,et al.  Accuracy of soft-copy digital mammography versus that of screen-film mammography according to digital manufacturer: ACRIN DMIST retrospective multireader study. , 2008, Radiology.

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

[8]  David Gur,et al.  Computer-aided detection schemes: the effect of limiting the number of cued regions in each case. , 2004, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[9]  Andrew D. A. Maidment,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography in patients with dense breasts who underwent problem-solving mammography: effects of image processing and lesion type. , 2003, Radiology.

[10]  J. Boone,et al.  Scatter/primary in mammography: comprehensive results. , 2000, Medical physics.

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

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

[13]  Masayuki Sasaki,et al.  Effect of Dose Reduction on the Ability of Digital Mammography to Detect Simulated Microcalcifications , 2010, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[14]  E. Samei,et al.  Dose dependence of mass and microcalcification detection in digital mammography: free response human observer studies. , 2007, Medical physics.

[15]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  A novel platform to simplify human observer performance experiments in clinical reading environments , 2011, Medical Imaging.

[16]  D R Dance,et al.  The computation of scatter in mammography by Monte Carlo methods. , 1984, Physics in medicine and biology.

[17]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Physical evaluation of a needle photostimulable phosphor based CR mammography system. , 2012, Medical physics.

[18]  Ann-Katherine Carton,et al.  Quantification of Al-equivalent thickness of just visible microcalcifications in full field digital mammograms. , 2004, Medical physics.

[19]  Nancy A. Obuchowski,et al.  Power estimation for multireader ROC methods an updated and unified approach. , 2011, Academic radiology.

[20]  Kenneth C. Young,et al.  Automated and Human Determination of Threshold Contrast for Digital Mammography Systems , 2006, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[21]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  An improved method for simulating microcalcifications in digital mammograms. , 2008, Medical physics.

[22]  D R Dance,et al.  Image resampling effects in mammographic image simulation. , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[23]  D. Chakraborty.  New developments in observer performance methodology in medical imaging. , 2011, Seminars in nuclear medicine.

[24]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Diagnostic Performance of Digital Versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[25]  Kenneth C. Young,et al.  A Survey of Patient Doses from Digital Mammography Systems in the UK in 2007 to 2009 , 2010, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[26]  Lubomir M. Hadjiiski,et al.  Computer-aided detection of breast masses: four-view strategy for screening mammography. , 2011, Medical physics.

[27]  J Jacobs,et al.  A quantitative method for evaluating the detectability of lesions in digital mammography. , 2008, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[28]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Scatter radiation in digital tomosynthesis of the breast. , 2007, Medical physics.

[29]  Ann-Katherine Carton,et al.  Contrast Threshold of 4 Full Field Digital Mammography Systems Using Different Measurement Methods , 2006, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[30]  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.

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

[32]  Berkman Sahiner,et al.  Computer-aided detection of masses in digital tomosynthesis mammography: comparison of three approaches. , 2008, Medical physics.

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

[34]  Donglin Zeng,et al.  The effects of gray scale image processing on digital mammography interpretation performance. , 2005, Academic radiology.

[35]  Dev P. Chakraborty,et al.  Estimating the parameters of a model of visual search from ROC data: an alternate method for fitting proper ROC curves , 2011, Medical Imaging.

[36]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: executive summary of AAPM TG18 report. , 2005, Medical physics.

[37]  Per Skaane,et al.  Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program--the Oslo II Study. , 2004, Radiology.

[38]  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.

[39]  Kerry T. Krugh,et al.  Microcalcification detectability for four mammographic detectors: flat-panel, CCD, CR, and screen/film). , 2002, Medical physics.