HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Sivaramakrishna, R. Articles by Powell, K. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Sivaramakrishna, R. Articles by Powell, K. A. Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Comparing the Performance of Mammographic Enhancement Algorithms

A Preference Study

¹ Department of Biomedical Engineering, ND20, Agnes Christine Roberts Breast Imaging Laboratory, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Ave., Cleveland, OH 44195.
² Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH 44195.
³ Division of Radiology, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH 44195.

OBJECTIVE. The objective of this study was to compare the performance of four image enhancement algorithms on secondarily digitized (i.e., digitized from film) mammograms containing masses and microcalcifications of known pathology in a clinical soft-copy display setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. Four different image processing algorithms (adaptive unsharp masking, contrast-limited adaptive histogram equalization, adaptive neighborhood contrast enhancement, and wavelet-based enhancement) were applied to one image of secondarily digitized mammograms of forty cases (10 each of benign and malignant masses and 10 each of benign and malignant microcalcifications). The four enhanced images and the one unenhanced image were displayed randomly across three high-resolution monitors. Four expert mammographers ranked the unenhanced and the four enhanced images from 1 (best) to 5 (worst).

RESULTS. For microcalcifications, the adaptive neighborhood contrast enhancement algorithm was the most preferred in 49% of the interpretations, the wavelet-based enhancement in 28%, and the unenhanced image in 13%. For masses, the unenhanced image was the most preferred in 58% of cases, followed by the unsharp masking algorithm (28%).

CONCLUSION. Appropriate image enhancement improves the visibility of microcalcifications. Among the different algorithms, the adaptive neighborhood contrast enhancement algorithm was preferred most often. For masses, no significant improvement was observed with any of these image processing approaches compared with the unenhanced image. Different image processing approaches may need to be used, depending on the type of lesion. This study has implications for the practice of digital mammography.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				F. Zanca, C. Van Ongeval, J. Jacobs, G. Marchal, and H. Bosmans A QUANTITATIVE METHOD FOR EVALUATING THE DETECTABILITY OF LESIONS IN DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY Radiat Prot Dosimetry, March 4, 2008; (2008) ncn049v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Van Ongeval, A. Van Steen, C. Geniets, F. Dekeyzer, H. Bosmans, and G. Marchal CLINICAL IMAGE QUALITY CRITERIA FOR FULL FIELD DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY: A FIRST PRACTICAL APPLICATION Radiat Prot Dosimetry, March 4, 2008; (2008) ncn029v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Bosmans, A.-K. Carton, F. Rogge, F. Zanca, J. Jacobs, C. Van Ongeval, K. Nijs, A. Van Steen, and G. Marchal Image quality measurements and metrics in full field digital mammography: an overview Radiat Prot Dosimetry, December 1, 2005; 117(1-3): 120 - 130. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]