Search

Purpose: To develop and validate an automated software analysis method for mammography image quality assessment of the American College of Radiology (ACR) digital mammography (DM) phantom images. Methods: Twenty‐seven DICOM images were acquired using Fuji mammography systems. All images were evaluated by three expert medical physicists using the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR) mammography quality control guideline. To enhance the robustness and sensitivity assessment of our algorithm, an additional set of 12 images from a Hologic mammography system was included to test various phantom positional adjustments. The software automatically chose multiple regions of interest (ROIs) for analysis. A template matching method was primarily used for image analysis, followed by an additional method that locates and scores each target object (speck groups, fibers, and masses). Results: The software performance shows a good to excellent agreement with the average scoring of observers (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] of 0.75, 0.79, 0.82 for speck groups, fibers, and masses, respectively). No significant differences were found in the scoring of target objects between human observers and the software. Both methods achieved scores meeting the pass criteria for speck groups and masses. Expert observers allocated lower scores to fiber objects, with diameters less than 0.61 mm, when compared to the software. The software was able to accurately score objects when the phantom position changed by up to 25 mm laterally, up to 5 degrees rotation, and overhanging the chest wall edge by up to 15 mm. Conclusions: Automated software analysis is a feasible method that may help improve the consistency and reproducibility of mammography image quality assessment with reduced reliance on human interaction and processing time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The information captured by the gist signal, which refers to radiologists' first impression arising from an initial global image processing, is poorly understood. We examined whether the gist signal can provide complementary information to data captured by radiologists (experiment 1), or computer algorithms (experiment 2) based on detailed mammogram inspection. In the first experiment, 19 radiologists assessed a case set twice, once based on a half-second image presentation (i.e., gist signal) and once in the usual viewing condition. Their performances in two viewing conditions were compared using repeated measure correlation (rm-corr). The cancer cases (19 cases × 19 readers) exhibited non-significant trend with rm-corr = 0.012 (p = 0.82, CI: −0.09, 0.12). For normal cases (41 cases × 19 readers), a weak correlation of rm-corr = 0.238 (p < 0.001, CI: 0.17, 0.30) was found. In the second experiment, we combined the abnormality score from a state-of-the-art deep learning-based tool (DL) with the radiological gist signal using a support vector machine (SVM). To obtain the gist signal, 53 radiologists assessed images based on half-second image presentation. The SVM performance for each radiologist and an average reader, whose gist responses were the mean abnormality scores given by all 53 readers to each image was assessed using leave-one-out cross-validation. For the average reader, the AUC for gist, DL, and the SVM, were 0.76 (CI: 0.62–0.86), 0.79 (CI: 0.63–0.89), and 0.88 (CI: 0.79–0.94). For all readers with a gist AUC significantly better than chance-level, the SVM outperformed DL. The gist signal provided malignancy evidence with no or weak associations with the information captured by humans in normal radiologic reporting, which involves detailed mammogram inspection. Adding gist signal to a state-of-the-art deep learning-based tool improved its performance for the breast cancer detection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]