High-performance wavelet compression for mammography: localization response operating characteristic evaluation.

PURPOSE To evaluate the accuracy of a visually lossless, image-adaptive, wavelet-based compression method for achievement of high compression rates at mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS The study was approved by the institutional review board of the University of South Florida as a research study with existing medical records and was exempt from individual patient consent requirements. Patient identifiers were obliterated from all images. The study was HIPAA compliant. An algorithm based on scale-specific quantization of biorthogonal wavelet coefficients was developed for the compression of digitized mammograms with high spatial and dynamic resolution. The method was applied to 500 normal and abnormal mammograms from 278 patients who were 32-85 years old, 85 of whom had biopsy-proved cancer. Film images were digitized with a charge-coupled device-based digitizer. The original and compressed reconstructed images were evaluated in a localization response operating characteristic experiment involving three radiologists with 2-10 years of experience in reading mammograms. RESULTS Compression rates in the range of 14:1 to 2051:1 were achieved, and the rates were dependent on the degree of parenchymal density and the type of breast structure. Ranges of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve were 0.70-0.83 and 0.72-0.86 for original and compressed reconstructed mammograms, respectively. Ranges of the area under the localization response operating characteristic curve were 0.39-0.65 and 0.43-0.71 for original and compressed reconstructed mammograms, respectively. The localization accuracy increased an average of 6% (0.04 of 0.67) with the compressed mammograms. Localization performance differences were statistically significant with P = .05 and favored interpretation with the wavelet-compressed reconstructed images. CONCLUSION The tested wavelet-based compression method proved to be an accurate approach for digitized mammography and yielded visually lossless high-rate compression and improved tumor localization.

[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]  Paul S. Fisher,et al.  Image quality measures and their performance , 1995, IEEE Trans. Commun..

[3]  Robert G. Gould,et al.  Specification, acceptance testing and quality control of diagnostic x-ray imaging equipment , 1994 .

[4]  Antonin Chambolle,et al.  Nonlinear wavelet image processing: variational problems, compression, and noise removal through wavelet shrinkage , 1998, IEEE Trans. Image Process..

[5]  John J Heine,et al.  Spectral analysis of full field digital mammography data. , 2002, Medical physics.

[6]  J. Heine,et al.  Resolution effects on the morphology of calcifications in digital mammograms , 1998 .

[7]  Ronald A. DeVore,et al.  Image compression through wavelet transform coding , 1992, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[8]  A G Haus Technologic improvements in screen-film mammography. , 1990, Radiology.

[9]  Maria Kallergi,et al.  Using BIRADS categories in ROC experiments , 2002, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[10]  D Gur,et al.  Preliminary clinical evaluation of a high-resolution telemammography system. , 1997, Investigative radiology.

[11]  Ingrid Daubechies,et al.  Ten Lectures on Wavelets , 1992 .

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

[13]  Clark Breast Cancer Screening: Is It Worthwhile? , 1995, Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center.

[14]  Laurence P. Clarke,et al.  Multiresolution Wavelet Approach for Separating the Breast Region from the Background in High Resolution Digital Mammography , 1998, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[15]  Kallergi Digital Mammography: From Theory to Practice. , 1998, Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center.

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

[17]  Wei Qian,et al.  Effect of wavelet bases on compressing digital mammograms , 1995 .

[18]  Report of the Working Group to Review the National Cancer Institute-American Cancer Society Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Projects. , 1979, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[19]  Glen G. Langdon,et al.  An Introduction to Arithmetic Coding , 1984, IBM J. Res. Dev..

[20]  Martin Vetterli,et al.  Adaptive wavelet thresholding for image denoising and compression , 2000, IEEE Trans. Image Process..

[21]  R. DeVore,et al.  Fast wavelet techniques for near-optimal image processing , 1992, MILCOM 92 Conference Record.

[22]  Maria Kallergi,et al.  Improved interpretation of digitized mammography with wavelet processing: a localization response operating characteristic study. , 2004, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[23]  Thomas F. Krile,et al.  Signal Recovery From Signal Dependent Noise , 1983, Optics & Photonics.

[24]  P F Judy,et al.  Visualization and detection-localization on computed tomographic images. , 1991, Investigative radiology.

[25]  Marios A. Gavrielides,et al.  Evaluation of a CCD-based film digitizer for digital mammography , 1997, Medical Imaging.

[26]  D. Petitti,et al.  Saving Women's Lives: Strategies for Improving Breast Cancer Detection and Diagnosis , 2005 .

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

[28]  Glen G. Langdon,et al.  An Overview of the Basic Principles of the Q-Coder Adaptive Binary Arithmetic Coder , 1988, IBM J. Res. Dev..

[29]  Jill L. King,et al.  Using incomplete and imprecise localization data on images to improve estimates of detection accuracy , 1999, Medical Imaging.

[30]  A. Jemal,et al.  Cancer Statistics, 2004 , 2004, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[31]  Maria Kallergi,et al.  Effect of Default Display and Presentation Protocol on Softcopy Mammography , 2003 .

[32]  C. Metz ROC Methodology in Radiologic Imaging , 1986, Investigative radiology.

[33]  J F Walkup,et al.  Image recovery from signal-dependent noise. , 1983, Optics letters.