Advertisement

Journal of Digital Imaging

, 11:193 | Cite as

Contrast Limited Adaptive Histogram Equalization image processing to improve the detection of simulated spiculations in dense mammograms

  • Etta D. Pisano
  • Shuquan Zong
  • Bradley M. Hemminger
  • Marla DeLuca
  • R. Eugene Johnston
  • Keith Muller
  • M. Patricia Braeuning
  • Stephen M. Pizer
Article

Abstract

The purpose of this project was to determine whether Contrast Limited Adaptive Histogram Equalization (CLAHE) improves detection of simulated spiculations in dense mammograms. Lines simulating the appearance of spiculations, a common marker of malignancy when visualized with masses, were embedded in dense mammograms digitized at 50 micron pixels, 12 bits deep. Film images with no CLAHE applied were compared to film images with nine different combinations of clip levels and region sizes applied. A simulated spiculation was embedded in a background of dense breast tissue, with the orientation of the spiculation varied. The key variables involved in each trial included the orientation of the spiculation, contrast level of the spiculation and the CLAHE settings applied to the image. Combining the 10 CLAHE conditions, 4 contrast levels and 4 orientations gave 160 combinations. The trials were constructed by pairing 160 combinations of key variables with 40 backgrounds. Twenty student observers were asked to detect the orientation of the spiculation in the image. There was a statistically significant improvement in detection performance for spiculations with CLAHE over unenhanced images when the region size was set at 32 with a clip level of 2, and when the region size was set at 32 with a clip level of 4. The selected CLAHE settings should be tested in the clinic with digital mammograms to determine whether detection of spiculations associated with masses detected at mammography can be improved.

Key Words

mammography image processing contrast limited adaptive histogram equalization observer studies breast cancer spiculations 

References

  1. 1.
    Homer MJ: Mammographic Interpretation: A practical approach. New York, NY, McGraw Hill, 1991, pp 4–5Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rosenman J, Roe CA, Cromartie R, et al: Portal Film enhancement: Technique and clinical utility. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Physics 25:333–338, 1993Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schmidt RA, Nishikawa RM: Clinical Use of Digital Mammography: The Present and the Prospects. J Digit Imaging 8:74–79, 1995 (suppl 1)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shtern F: Digital mammography and related technologies: A perspective from the National Cancer Institute. Radiology 183:629–30, 1992PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Feig SA, Yaffe MJ: Current status of digital mammography. Sem Ultrasound, CT and MR 17:424–443, 1997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pisano ED, Chandramouli J, Hemminger BM, et al: Does intensity windowing improve the detection of simulated calcifications in dense mammograms? J Digit Imaging 10:79–84, 1997CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pisano ED, Chandramouli J, Hemminger BM, et al: The effect of intensity windowing as an image processing tool in the detection of simulated masses embedded in digitized mammograms. J Digit Imaging 10:174–182, 1997CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Puff DT, Pisano ED, Muller KE, et al: A method for determination of optimal image enhancement for the detection of mammographic abnormalities. J Digit Imaging 7:161–171, 1994CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McSweeney MB, Sprawls P, Egan RL: Enhanced image mammography. AJR Am J Roentgerol 140:9–14, 1983Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smathers RL, Bush E, Drace J, et al: Mammographic microcalcifications: Detection with xerography, screen film, and digitized film display. Radiology 159:673–677, 1986PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chan HP, Doi K, Galhorta S, et al: Image feature analysis and computer-aided diagnosis in digital radiography: I. Automated detection of microcalcifications in mammography. Med Phys 14:538–547, 1987CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chan HP, Vyborny CJ, MacMahon H, et al: Digital mammography ROC studies of the effects of pixel size and unsharp-mask filtering on the detection of subtle microcalcifications. Invest Radiol 22:581–589, 1987CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hale DA, Cook JF, Baniqued Z, et al: Selective digital enhancement of conventional film mammography. J Surg Onc 55:42–46, 1994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yin F, Giger ML, Vyborny CJ, et al: Comparison of bilateral-subtraction and single-image processing techniques in the computerized detection of mammographic masses. Invest Radiol 28:473–781, 1993CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yin F, Giger M, Doi K, et al: Computerized detection of masses in digital mammograms: Analysis of bilateral subtraction images. Med Phys 18:955–963, 1991CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kallergi M, Clarke LP, Qian W, et al: Interpretation of calcifications in screen/film, digitized and wavelet-enhanced monitor-displayed mammograms: A receiver-operating characteristic study. Acad Radiol 3:285–293, 1996CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pizer S, Zimmerman JB, Staab EV: Adaptive grey level assignment in CT scan display. J Comput Assist Tomogr 8:300–305, 1984PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pizer SM: Psychovisual issues in the display of medical images, in Hoehne KH (ed): Pictoral Information Systems in Medicine. Berlin, Germany, Springer-Verlag, 1985, pp 211–234Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Revesz G, Kundel HL, Graber MD: The influence of structured noise on the detection of radiologic abnormalities. Invest Radiol 9:479–486, 1974CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kundel HL, Revesz G: Lesion conspicuity, structured noise and film reader error. AJR Am J Roentgenol 126:1233–1238, 1976PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Revesz G, Kundel HL: Psychophysical studies of detection errors in chest radiology. Radiology 128:559–562, 1977Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    MacMillan NA, Creelman CD: Detection theory: A user guide. Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp 135–136Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Etta D. Pisano
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
  • Shuquan Zong
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
  • Bradley M. Hemminger
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
  • Marla DeLuca
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
  • R. Eugene Johnston
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
  • Keith Muller
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
  • M. Patricia Braeuning
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
  • Stephen M. Pizer
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyThe University of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceThe University of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biomedical EngineeringThe University of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA
  4. 4.Department of BiostatisticsThe University of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA
  5. 5.School of Public Health and College of Arts and Sciencesthe UNC School of MedicineUSA
  6. 6.UNC-Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer CenterUSA

Personalised recommendations