Cargando…
How does image quality affect radiologists’ perceived ability for image interpretation and lesion detection in digital mammography?
OBJECTIVES: To study how radiologists’ perceived ability to interpret digital mammography (DM) images is affected by decreases in image quality. METHODS: One view from 45 DM cases (including 30 cancers) was degraded to six levels each of two acquisition-related issues (lower spatial resolution and i...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8213590/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33475774 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07679-8 |
_version_ | 1783709881147064320 |
---|---|
author | Boita, Joana van Engen, Ruben E. Mackenzie, Alistair Tingberg, Anders Bosmans, Hilde Bolejko, Anetta Zackrisson, Sophia Wallis, Matthew G. Ikeda, Debra M. Van Ongeval, Chantal Pijnappel, Ruud Broeders, Mireille Sechopoulos, Ioannis |
author_facet | Boita, Joana van Engen, Ruben E. Mackenzie, Alistair Tingberg, Anders Bosmans, Hilde Bolejko, Anetta Zackrisson, Sophia Wallis, Matthew G. Ikeda, Debra M. Van Ongeval, Chantal Pijnappel, Ruud Broeders, Mireille Sechopoulos, Ioannis |
author_sort | Boita, Joana |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: To study how radiologists’ perceived ability to interpret digital mammography (DM) images is affected by decreases in image quality. METHODS: One view from 45 DM cases (including 30 cancers) was degraded to six levels each of two acquisition-related issues (lower spatial resolution and increased quantum noise) and three post-processing-related issues (lower and higher contrast and increased correlated noise) seen during clinical evaluation of DM systems. The images were shown to fifteen breast screening radiologists from five countries. Aware of lesion location, the radiologists selected the most-degraded mammogram (indexed from 1 (reference) to 7 (most degraded)) they still felt was acceptable for interpretation. The median selected index, per degradation type, was calculated separately for calcification and soft tissue (including normal) cases. Using the two-sided, non-parametric Mann-Whitney test, the median indices for each case and degradation type were compared. RESULTS: Radiologists were not tolerant to increases (medians: 1.5 (calcifications) and 2 (soft tissue)) or decreases (median: 2, for both types) in contrast, but were more tolerant to correlated noise (median: 3, for both types). Increases in quantum noise were tolerated more for calcifications than for soft tissue cases (medians: 3 vs. 4, p = 0.02). Spatial resolution losses were considered less acceptable for calcification detection than for soft tissue cases (medians: 3.5 vs. 5, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Perceived ability of radiologists for image interpretation in DM was affected not only by image acquisition-related issues but also by image post-processing issues, and some of those issues affected calcification cases more than soft tissue cases. KEY POINTS: • Lower spatial resolution and increased quantum noise affected the radiologists’ perceived ability to interpret calcification cases more than soft tissue lesion or normal cases. • Post-acquisition image processing-related effects, not only image acquisition-related effects, also impact the perceived ability of radiologists to interpret images and detect lesions. • In addition to current practices, post-acquisition image processing-related effects need to also be considered during the testing and evaluation of digital mammography systems. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00330-020-07679-8. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8213590 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-82135902021-07-01 How does image quality affect radiologists’ perceived ability for image interpretation and lesion detection in digital mammography? Boita, Joana van Engen, Ruben E. Mackenzie, Alistair Tingberg, Anders Bosmans, Hilde Bolejko, Anetta Zackrisson, Sophia Wallis, Matthew G. Ikeda, Debra M. Van Ongeval, Chantal Pijnappel, Ruud Broeders, Mireille Sechopoulos, Ioannis Eur Radiol Physics OBJECTIVES: To study how radiologists’ perceived ability to interpret digital mammography (DM) images is affected by decreases in image quality. METHODS: One view from 45 DM cases (including 30 cancers) was degraded to six levels each of two acquisition-related issues (lower spatial resolution and increased quantum noise) and three post-processing-related issues (lower and higher contrast and increased correlated noise) seen during clinical evaluation of DM systems. The images were shown to fifteen breast screening radiologists from five countries. Aware of lesion location, the radiologists selected the most-degraded mammogram (indexed from 1 (reference) to 7 (most degraded)) they still felt was acceptable for interpretation. The median selected index, per degradation type, was calculated separately for calcification and soft tissue (including normal) cases. Using the two-sided, non-parametric Mann-Whitney test, the median indices for each case and degradation type were compared. RESULTS: Radiologists were not tolerant to increases (medians: 1.5 (calcifications) and 2 (soft tissue)) or decreases (median: 2, for both types) in contrast, but were more tolerant to correlated noise (median: 3, for both types). Increases in quantum noise were tolerated more for calcifications than for soft tissue cases (medians: 3 vs. 4, p = 0.02). Spatial resolution losses were considered less acceptable for calcification detection than for soft tissue cases (medians: 3.5 vs. 5, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Perceived ability of radiologists for image interpretation in DM was affected not only by image acquisition-related issues but also by image post-processing issues, and some of those issues affected calcification cases more than soft tissue cases. KEY POINTS: • Lower spatial resolution and increased quantum noise affected the radiologists’ perceived ability to interpret calcification cases more than soft tissue lesion or normal cases. • Post-acquisition image processing-related effects, not only image acquisition-related effects, also impact the perceived ability of radiologists to interpret images and detect lesions. • In addition to current practices, post-acquisition image processing-related effects need to also be considered during the testing and evaluation of digital mammography systems. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00330-020-07679-8. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021-01-21 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8213590/ /pubmed/33475774 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07679-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Physics Boita, Joana van Engen, Ruben E. Mackenzie, Alistair Tingberg, Anders Bosmans, Hilde Bolejko, Anetta Zackrisson, Sophia Wallis, Matthew G. Ikeda, Debra M. Van Ongeval, Chantal Pijnappel, Ruud Broeders, Mireille Sechopoulos, Ioannis How does image quality affect radiologists’ perceived ability for image interpretation and lesion detection in digital mammography? |
title | How does image quality affect radiologists’ perceived ability for image interpretation and lesion detection in digital mammography? |
title_full | How does image quality affect radiologists’ perceived ability for image interpretation and lesion detection in digital mammography? |
title_fullStr | How does image quality affect radiologists’ perceived ability for image interpretation and lesion detection in digital mammography? |
title_full_unstemmed | How does image quality affect radiologists’ perceived ability for image interpretation and lesion detection in digital mammography? |
title_short | How does image quality affect radiologists’ perceived ability for image interpretation and lesion detection in digital mammography? |
title_sort | how does image quality affect radiologists’ perceived ability for image interpretation and lesion detection in digital mammography? |
topic | Physics |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8213590/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33475774 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07679-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT boitajoana howdoesimagequalityaffectradiologistsperceivedabilityforimageinterpretationandlesiondetectionindigitalmammography AT vanengenrubene howdoesimagequalityaffectradiologistsperceivedabilityforimageinterpretationandlesiondetectionindigitalmammography AT mackenziealistair howdoesimagequalityaffectradiologistsperceivedabilityforimageinterpretationandlesiondetectionindigitalmammography AT tingberganders howdoesimagequalityaffectradiologistsperceivedabilityforimageinterpretationandlesiondetectionindigitalmammography AT bosmanshilde howdoesimagequalityaffectradiologistsperceivedabilityforimageinterpretationandlesiondetectionindigitalmammography AT bolejkoanetta howdoesimagequalityaffectradiologistsperceivedabilityforimageinterpretationandlesiondetectionindigitalmammography AT zackrissonsophia howdoesimagequalityaffectradiologistsperceivedabilityforimageinterpretationandlesiondetectionindigitalmammography AT wallismatthewg howdoesimagequalityaffectradiologistsperceivedabilityforimageinterpretationandlesiondetectionindigitalmammography AT ikedadebram howdoesimagequalityaffectradiologistsperceivedabilityforimageinterpretationandlesiondetectionindigitalmammography AT vanongevalchantal howdoesimagequalityaffectradiologistsperceivedabilityforimageinterpretationandlesiondetectionindigitalmammography AT pijnappelruud howdoesimagequalityaffectradiologistsperceivedabilityforimageinterpretationandlesiondetectionindigitalmammography AT broedersmireille howdoesimagequalityaffectradiologistsperceivedabilityforimageinterpretationandlesiondetectionindigitalmammography AT sechopoulosioannis howdoesimagequalityaffectradiologistsperceivedabilityforimageinterpretationandlesiondetectionindigitalmammography AT howdoesimagequalityaffectradiologistsperceivedabilityforimageinterpretationandlesiondetectionindigitalmammography |