Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Apr;22(4):908-14.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-011-2320-2. Epub 2011 Nov 10.

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

Affiliations

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

Roelant Visser et al. Eur Radiol. 2012 Apr.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Visual analogue scale used for scoring suspiciousness of individual findings within each case
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Example of a finding in a left-sided mediolateral oblique view, reported by four radiologists when using Premium View (PV) only. a Digitised prior. b Tissue equalisation (TE) processed image. c PV processed image with the annotation. d is the result image of subtracting (TE) from (PV). e is the thresholded version of (d). White areas indicate that pixels in the PV image have relatively higher intensity than the related pixels in the TE image whereas black areas indicate the opposite. It shows that in PV images low frequency trends are suppressed (no noticeable signal decrease in the breast edge in PV compared with TE) whereas higher frequency structures are emphasised (e.g. glandular structures)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
a Recall rates for equal suspiciousness thresholds with TE and PV. b Excerpt of (a)

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Vinnicombe S, Pinto Pereira SM, McCormack VA, et al. Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK breast screening program and systematic review of published data. Radiology. 2009;251:347–358. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2512081235. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Skaane P. Studies comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography in breast cancer screening: updated review. Acta Radiol. 2009;50:3–14. doi: 10.1080/02841850802563269. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Karssemeijer N, Bluekens AM, Beijerinck D, et al. Breast cancer screening results 5 years after introduction of digital mammography in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2009;253:353–358. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2532090225. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bluekens AM, Karssemeijer N, Beijerinck D, et al. Consequences of digital mammography in population-based breast cancer screening: initial changes and long-term impact on referral rates. Eur Radiol. 2010;20:2067–73. doi: 10.1007/s00330-010-1786-7. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Vernacchia FS, Pena ZG. Digital mammography: its impact on recall rates and cancer detection rates in a small community-based radiology practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:582–585. doi: 10.2214/AJR.08.1720. - DOI - PubMed