Full-field digital mammography image data storage reduction using a crop tool

  • Bong Joo Kang
  • Sung Hun Kim
  • Yeong Yi An
  • Byung Gil ChoiEmail author
Original Article



The storage requirements for full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in a picture archiving and communication system are significant, so methods to reduce the data set size are needed. A FFDM crop tool for this purpose was designed, implemented, and tested.

Materials and methods

A total of 1,651 screening mammography cases with bilateral FFDMs were included in this study. The images were cropped using a DICOM editor while maintaining image quality. The cases were evaluated according to the breast volume (1/4, 2/4, 3/4, and 4/4) in the craniocaudal view. The image sizes between the cropped image group and the uncropped image group were compared. The overall image quality and reader’s preference were independently evaluated by the consensus of two radiologists.


Digital storage requirements for sets of four uncropped to cropped FFDM images were reduced by 3.8 to 82.9 %. The mean reduction rates according to the 1/4–4/4 breast volumes were 74.7, 61.1, 38, and 24 %, indicating that the lower the breast volume, the smaller the size of the cropped data set. The total image data set size was reduced from 87 to 36.7 GB, or a 57.7 % reduction. The overall image quality and the reader’s preference for the cropped images were higher than those of the uncropped images.


FFDM mammography data storage requirements can be significantly reduced using a crop tool.


Crop Digital mammography FFDM PACS 


Conflict of interest

Bong Joo Kang, Sung Hun Kim, Yeong Yi An, and Byung Gil Choi declare that they have no conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    Slone RM, Foos DH, Whiting BR, Muka E, Rubin DA, Pilgram TK, Kohm KS, Young SS, Ho P, Hendrickson DD (2000) Assessment of visually lossless irreversible image compression: comparison of three methods by using an image-comparison workstation. Radiology 215(2):543–553CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Agarwal A, Rowberg AH, Kim Y (2003) Fast JPEG 2000 decoder and its use in medical imaging. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed 7(3):184–190CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cosman PC, Davidson HC, Bergin CJ, Tseng CW, Moses LE, Riskin EA, Olshen RA, Gray RM (1994) Thoracic CT images: effect of lossy image compression on diagnostic accuracy. Radiology 190(2):517–524CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Erickson BJ, Manduca A, Palisson P, Persons KR, Ft Earnest, Savcenko V, Hangiandreou NJ (1998) Wavelet compression of medical images. Radiology 206(3):599–607CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zheng B, Sumkin JH, Good WF, Maitz GS, Chang YH, Gur D (2000) Applying computer-assisted detection schemes to digitized mammograms after JPEG data compression: an assessment. Acad Radiol 7(8):595–602CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Cormack JB, Hanna LA, Conant EF, Fajardo LL, Bassett LW, D’Orsi CJ, Jong RA, Rebner M, Tosteson AN, Gatsonis CA (2008) Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology 246(2):376–383CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Conant EF, Fajardo LL, Bassett L, D’Orsi C, Jong R, Rebner M (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353(17):1773–1783CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Skaane P, Skjennald A (2004) Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program-the Oslo II Study. Radiology 232(1):197–204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jenkins J, Murphy AE, Edmondson-Jones M, Sibbering DM, Turnbull AE (2014) Film reading in the East Midlands Breast Screening Programme—are we missing opportunities for earlier diagnosis? Clin Radiol 69(4):385–390CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Radiology. ACo (2003) Breast imaging reporting and data system, breast imaging atlas, 4th edn. American College of Radiology, RestonGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Faccioli N, Perandini S, Comai A, D’Onofrio M (2009) Proper use of common image file formats in handling radiological images. La Radiol Med 114(3):484–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Graham RN, Perriss RW, Scarsbrook AF (2005) DICOM demystified: a review of digital file formats and their use in radiological practice. Clin Radiol 60(11):1133–1140CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kang BJ, Kim SH, Choi BG (2011) Comparison of full-field digital mammography workstation and conventional picture archiving and communication system in image quality and diagnostic performance. Clin Imaging 35(5):336–340CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kang BJ, Kim HS, Park CS, Choi JJ, Lee JH, Choi BG (2011) Acceptable compression ratio of full-field digital mammography using JPEG 2000. Clin Radiol 66(7):609–613CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tamm EP, Thompson S, Venable SL, McEnery K (2002) Impact of multislice CT on PACS resources. J Digit Imaging 15:96–101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee KH, Kim YH, Kim BH, Kim KJ, Kim TJ, Kim HJ, Hahn S (2007) Irreversible JPEG 2000 compression of abdominal CT for primary interpretation: assessment of visually lossless threshold. Eur Radiol 17(6):1529–1534CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ringl H, Schernthaner R, Sala E, El-Rabadi K, Weber M, Schima W, Herold CJ, Dixon AK (2008) Lossy 3D JPEG2000 compression of abdominal CT images in patients with acute abdominal complaints: effect of compression ratio on diagnostic confidence and accuracy. Radiology 248(2):476–484CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ringl H, Schernthaner RE, Bankier AA, Weber M, Prokop M, Herold CJ, Schaefer-Prokop C (2006) JPEG2000 compression of thin-section CT images of the lung: effect of compression ratio on image quality. Radiology 240(3):869–877CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liang Z, Du X, Liu J, Yang Y, Rong D, Yao X, Li K (2008) Effects of different compression techniques on diagnostic accuracies of breast masses on digitized mammograms. Acta Radiol 49(7):747–751CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kocsis O, Costaridou L, Varaki L, Likaki E, Kalogeropoulou C, Skiadopoulos S, Panayiotakis G (2003) Visually lossless threshold determination for microcalcification detection in wavelet compressed mammograms. Eur Radiol 13(10):2390–2396CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Huffman J (2007) PACS, iSyntax and iSite, June 18–25Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Park JM, Franken EA Jr (2008) Triangulation of breast lesions: review and clinical applications. Curr Prob Diagn Radiol 37(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fallenberg EM, Dimitrijevic L, Diekmann F, Diekmann S, Kettritz U, Poellinger A, Bick U, Winzer KJ, Engelken F, Renz DM (2014) Impact of magnification views on the characterization of microcalcifications in digital mammography. RoFo : Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Rontgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin 186(3):274–280PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ko SY, Kim EK, Kim MJ, Moon HJ (2014) Mammographic density estimation with automated volumetric breast density measurement. Korean J Radiol Off J Korean Radiol Soc 15(3):313–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Skippage P, Wilkinson L, Allen S, Roche N, Dowsett M, A’Hern R (2013) Correlation of age and HRT use with breast density as assessed by Quantra. Breast J 19(1):79–86CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© CARS 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bong Joo Kang
    • 1
  • Sung Hun Kim
    • 1
  • Yeong Yi An
    • 1
  • Byung Gil Choi
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary’s HospitalThe Catholic University of KoreaSeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations