Performance evaluation of image processing algorithms in digital mammography

The purpose of the study is to evaluate the performance of different image processing algorithms in terms of representation of microcalcification clusters in digital mammograms. Clusters were simulated in clinical raw ("for processing") images. The entire dataset of images consisted of 200 normal mammograms, selected out of our clinical routine cases and acquired with a Siemens Novation DR system. In 100 of the normal images a total of 142 clusters were simulated; the remaining 100 normal mammograms served as true negative input cases. Both abnormal and normal images were processed with 5 commercially available processing algorithms: Siemens OpView1 and Siemens OpView2, Agfa Musica1, Sectra Mamea AB Sigmoid and IMS Raffaello Mammo 1.2. Five observers were asked to locate and score the cluster(s) in each image, by means of dedicated software tool. Observer performance was assessed using the JAFROC Figure of Merit. FROC curves, fitted using the IDCA method, have also been calculated. JAFROC analysis revealed significant differences among the image processing algorithms in the detection of microcalcifications clusters (p=0.0000369). Calculated average Figures of Merit are: 0.758 for Siemens OpView2, 0.747 for IMS Processing 1.2, 0.736 for Agfa Musica1 processing, 0.706 for Sectra Mamea AB Sigmoid processing and 0.703 for Siemens OpView1. This study is a first step towards a quantitative assessment of image processing in terms of cluster detection in clinical mammograms. Although we showed a significant difference among the image processing algorithms, this method does not on its own allow for a global performance ranking of the investigated algorithms.

[1]  B. Efron.  The jackknife, the bootstrap, and other resampling plans , 1987 .

[2]  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.

[3]  Robert M. Nishikawa,et al.  Radiologists’ Preferences for Digital Mammographic Display , 2000 .

[4]  Lena Costaridou,et al.  A digital equalisation technique improving visualisation of dense mammary gland and breast periphery in mammography. , 2003, European journal of radiology.

[5]  E Samei,et al.  Detection of subtle lung nodules: relative influence of quantum and anatomic noise on chest radiographs. , 1999, Radiology.

[6]  W. Huda,et al.  Mammographic image processing using wavelet processing techniques , 1995, European Radiology.

[7]  Darrin C. Edwards,et al.  Maximum likelihood fitting of FROC curves under an initial-detection-and-candidate-analysis model. , 2002, Medical physics.

[8]  Andrew D. A. Maidment,et al.  Image processing algorithms for digital mammography: a pictorial essay. , 2000, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[9]  K. Muller,et al.  Improving the detection of simulated masses in mammograms through two different image-processing techniques. , 2001, Academic radiology.

[10]  B J Flehinger,et al.  Non-small-cell lung cancer: results of the New York screening program. , 1984, Radiology.

[11]  R. Bird,et al.  Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography. , 1992, Radiology.

[12]  A H Baydush,et al.  Improved image quality in digital mammography with image processing. , 2000, Medical physics.

[13]  N. Obuchowski,et al.  Comparing the performance of mammographic enhancement algorithms: a preference study. , 2000, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[14]  W. E. Miller,et al.  Lung cancer detected during a screening program using four-month chest radiographs. , 1983, Radiology.

[15]  Dev P Chakraborty,et al.  Analysis of location specific observer performance data: validated extensions of the jackknife free-response (JAFROC) method. , 2006, Academic radiology.

[16]  H L Kundel,et al.  Psychophysical studies of detection errors in chest radiology. , 1977, Radiology.

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

[18]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Evaluation of the global effect of anatomical background on microcalcifications detection , 2007, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[19]  L. Bassett,et al.  Mammography and breast cancer screening. , 1990, The Surgical clinics of North America.

[20]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Development and implementation of a user friendly and automated environment for the creation of databases of digital mammograms with simulated microcalcifications , 2006, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[21]  J W Oestmann,et al.  Impact of postprocessing on the detection of simulated pulmonary nodules with digital radiography. , 1989, Investigative radiology.

[22]  Bradley M. Hemminger,et al.  The effect of intensity windowing on the detection of simulated masses embedded in dense portions of digitized mammograms in a laboratory setting , 2009, Journal of Digital Imaging.