Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 4/2012

Open Access 01-04-2012 | Breast

Increase in perceived case suspiciousness due to local contrast optimisation in digital screening mammography

Authors: Roelant Visser, Wouter J. H. Veldkamp, David Beijerinck, Petra A. M. Bun, Jan J. M. Deurenberg, Mechli W. Imhof-Tas, Klaas H. Schuur, Miranda M. Snoeren, Gerard J. den Heeten, Nico Karssemeijer, Mireille J. M. Broeders

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 4/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To determine the influence of local contrast optimisation on diagnostic accuracy and perceived suspiciousness of digital screening mammograms.

Methods

Data were collected from a screening region in the Netherlands and consisted of 263 digital screening cases (153 recalled,110 normal). Each case was available twice, once processed with a tissue equalisation (TE) algorithm and once with local contrast optimisation (PV). All cases had digitised previous mammograms. For both algorithms, the probability of malignancy of each finding was scored independently by six screening radiologists. Perceived case suspiciousness was defined as the highest probability of malignancy of all findings of a radiologist within a case. Differences in diagnostic accuracy of the processing algorithms were analysed by comparing the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (A z ). Differences in perceived case suspiciousness were analysed using sign tests.

Results

There was no significant difference in A z (TE: 0.909, PV 0.917, P = 0.46). For all radiologists, perceived case suspiciousness using PV was higher than using TE more often than vice versa (ratio: 1.14–2.12). This was significant (P <0.0083) for four radiologists.

Conclusions

Optimisation of local contrast by image processing may increase perceived case suspiciousness, while diagnostic accuracy may remain similar.

Key Points

Variations among different image processing algorithms for digital screening mammography are large.
Current algorithms still aim for optimal local contrast with a low dynamic range.
Although optimisation of contrast may increase sensitivity, diagnostic accuracy is probably unchanged.
Increased local contrast may render both normal and abnormal structures more conspicuous.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Vinnicombe S, Pinto Pereira SM, McCormack VA et al (2009) Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK breast screening program and systematic review of published data. Radiology 251:347–358PubMedCrossRef Vinnicombe S, Pinto Pereira SM, McCormack VA et al (2009) Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK breast screening program and systematic review of published data. Radiology 251:347–358PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Skaane P (2009) Studies comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography in breast cancer screening: updated review. Acta Radiol 50:3–14PubMedCrossRef Skaane P (2009) Studies comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography in breast cancer screening: updated review. Acta Radiol 50:3–14PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Karssemeijer N, Bluekens AM, Beijerinck D et al (2009) Breast cancer screening results 5 years after introduction of digital mammography in a population-based screening program. Radiology 253:353–358PubMedCrossRef Karssemeijer N, Bluekens AM, Beijerinck D et al (2009) Breast cancer screening results 5 years after introduction of digital mammography in a population-based screening program. Radiology 253:353–358PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Bluekens AM, Karssemeijer N, Beijerinck D et al (2010) Consequences of digital mammography in population-based breast cancer screening: initial changes and long-term impact on referral rates. Eur Radiol 20:2067–73PubMedCrossRef Bluekens AM, Karssemeijer N, Beijerinck D et al (2010) Consequences of digital mammography in population-based breast cancer screening: initial changes and long-term impact on referral rates. Eur Radiol 20:2067–73PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Vernacchia FS, Pena ZG (2009) Digital mammography: its impact on recall rates and cancer detection rates in a small community-based radiology practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:582–585PubMedCrossRef Vernacchia FS, Pena ZG (2009) Digital mammography: its impact on recall rates and cancer detection rates in a small community-based radiology practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:582–585PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Pisano ED, Cole EB, Major S et al (2000) Radiologists’ preferences for digital mammographic display. The International Digital Mammography Development Group. Radiology 216:820–830PubMed Pisano ED, Cole EB, Major S et al (2000) Radiologists’ preferences for digital mammographic display. The International Digital Mammography Development Group. Radiology 216:820–830PubMed
7.
go back to reference Sivaramakrishna R, Obuchowski NA, Chilcote WA, Cardenosa G, Powell KA (2000) Comparing the performance of mammographic enhancement algorithms: a preference study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 175:45–51PubMed Sivaramakrishna R, Obuchowski NA, Chilcote WA, Cardenosa G, Powell KA (2000) Comparing the performance of mammographic enhancement algorithms: a preference study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 175:45–51PubMed
8.
go back to reference Van Ongeval C, Van Steen A, Geniets C et al (2008) Clinical image quality criteria for full field digital mammography: a first practical application. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 129:265–270PubMedCrossRef Van Ongeval C, Van Steen A, Geniets C et al (2008) Clinical image quality criteria for full field digital mammography: a first practical application. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 129:265–270PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Siegel E, Krupinski E, Samei E et al (2006) Digital mammography image quality: image display. J Am Coll Radiol 3:615–627PubMedCrossRef Siegel E, Krupinski E, Samei E et al (2006) Digital mammography image quality: image display. J Am Coll Radiol 3:615–627PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Pisano ED, Cole EB, Hemminger BM et al (2000) Image processing algorithms for digital mammography: a pictorial essay. Radiographics 20:1479–1491PubMed Pisano ED, Cole EB, Hemminger BM et al (2000) Image processing algorithms for digital mammography: a pictorial essay. Radiographics 20:1479–1491PubMed
11.
go back to reference Cole EB, Pisano ED, Zeng D et al (2005) The effects of gray scale image processing on digital mammography interpretation performance. Acad Radiol 12:585–595PubMedCrossRef Cole EB, Pisano ED, Zeng D et al (2005) The effects of gray scale image processing on digital mammography interpretation performance. Acad Radiol 12:585–595PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Baydush AH, Floyd CE Jr (2000) Improved image quality in digital mammography with image processing. Med Phys 27:1503–1508PubMedCrossRef Baydush AH, Floyd CE Jr (2000) Improved image quality in digital mammography with image processing. Med Phys 27:1503–1508PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Diekmann F, Heinlein P, Drexl J et al (2001) Visualization of microcalcifications by full-field digital mammography using a wavelet algorithm. Int Congr Ser 1230:526–530CrossRef Diekmann F, Heinlein P, Drexl J et al (2001) Visualization of microcalcifications by full-field digital mammography using a wavelet algorithm. Int Congr Ser 1230:526–530CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Zanca F, Jacobs J, Van Ongeval C et al (2009) Evaluation of clinical image processing algorithms used in digital in digital mammography. Med Phys 36:765–775PubMedCrossRef Zanca F, Jacobs J, Van Ongeval C et al (2009) Evaluation of clinical image processing algorithms used in digital in digital mammography. Med Phys 36:765–775PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Roelofs AA, van Woudenberg S, Otten JD et al (2006) Effect of soft-copy display supported by CAD on mammography screening performance. Eur Radiol 16:45–52PubMedCrossRef Roelofs AA, van Woudenberg S, Otten JD et al (2006) Effect of soft-copy display supported by CAD on mammography screening performance. Eur Radiol 16:45–52PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Goldstraw EJ, Castellano I, Ashley S et al (2010) The effect of Premium View post-processing software on digital mammographic reporting. Br J Radiol 83:122–128PubMedCrossRef Goldstraw EJ, Castellano I, Ashley S et al (2010) The effect of Premium View post-processing software on digital mammographic reporting. Br J Radiol 83:122–128PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Metz CE, Pan XC (1999) “Proper” binormal ROC curves: theory and maximum-likelihood estimation. J Math Psychol 43:1–33PubMedCrossRef Metz CE, Pan XC (1999) “Proper” binormal ROC curves: theory and maximum-likelihood estimation. J Math Psychol 43:1–33PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Pan XC, Metz CE (1997) The “proper” binormal model: parametric receiver operating characteristic curve estimation with degenerate data. Acad Radiol 4:380–389PubMedCrossRef Pan XC, Metz CE (1997) The “proper” binormal model: parametric receiver operating characteristic curve estimation with degenerate data. Acad Radiol 4:380–389PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE (1992) Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis - generalization to the population of readers and patients with the Jackknife method. Invest Radiol 27:723–731PubMedCrossRef Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE (1992) Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis - generalization to the population of readers and patients with the Jackknife method. Invest Radiol 27:723–731PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Hillis SL, Berbaum KS, Metz CE (2008) Recent developments in the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz procedure for multireader ROC study analysis. Acad Radiol 15:647–661PubMedCrossRef Hillis SL, Berbaum KS, Metz CE (2008) Recent developments in the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz procedure for multireader ROC study analysis. Acad Radiol 15:647–661PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Roelofs AA, Karssemeijer N, Wedekind N et al (2007) Importance of comparison of current and prior mammograms in breast cancer screening. Radiology 242:70–77PubMedCrossRef Roelofs AA, Karssemeijer N, Wedekind N et al (2007) Importance of comparison of current and prior mammograms in breast cancer screening. Radiology 242:70–77PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Kamitani T, Yabuuchi H, Soeda H et al (2010) Detection of breast cancer by soft-copy reading of digital mammograms: comparison between a routine image-processing parameter and high-contrast parameters. Acta Radiol 51:15–20PubMedCrossRef Kamitani T, Yabuuchi H, Soeda H et al (2010) Detection of breast cancer by soft-copy reading of digital mammograms: comparison between a routine image-processing parameter and high-contrast parameters. Acta Radiol 51:15–20PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Chen B, Wang W, Huang J et al (2010) Comparison of tissue equalization, and premium view post-processing methods in full field digital mammography. Eur J Radiol 76:73–80PubMedCrossRef Chen B, Wang W, Huang J et al (2010) Comparison of tissue equalization, and premium view post-processing methods in full field digital mammography. Eur J Radiol 76:73–80PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Increase in perceived case suspiciousness due to local contrast optimisation in digital screening mammography
Authors
Roelant Visser
Wouter J. H. Veldkamp
David Beijerinck
Petra A. M. Bun
Jan J. M. Deurenberg
Mechli W. Imhof-Tas
Klaas H. Schuur
Miranda M. Snoeren
Gerard J. den Heeten
Nico Karssemeijer
Mireille J. M. Broeders
Publication date
01-04-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 4/2012
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2320-2

Other articles of this Issue 4/2012

European Radiology 4/2012 Go to the issue