Skip to main content
Journal of Digital Imaging logoLink to Journal of Digital Imaging
. 1997 Nov;10(4):174–182. doi: 10.1007/BF03168840

The effect of intensity windowing on the detection of simulated masses embedded in dense portions of digitized mammograms in a laboratory setting

Etta D Pisano 1,2,3,4,5,6,, Jayanthi Chandramouli 1,2,3,4,5,6, Bradley M Hemminger 1,2,3,4,5,6, Deb Glueck 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, Derek Puff 1,2,3,4,5,6, William Garrett 1,2,3,4,5,6, Stephen Pizer 1,2,3,4,5,6
PMCID: PMC3452985  PMID: 9399171

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine whether intensity windowing (IW) improves detection of simulated masses in dense mammograms. Simulated masses were embedded in dense mammograms digitized at 50 microns/pixel, 12 bits deep. Images were printed with no windowing applied and with nine window width and level combinations applied. A simulated mass was embedded in a realistic background of dense breast tissue, with the position of the mass (against the background) varied. The key variables involved in each trial included the position of the mass, the contrast levels and the IW setting applied to the image. Combining the 10 image processing conditions, 4 contrast levels, and 4 quadrant positions gave 160 combinations. The trials were constructed by pairing 160 combinations of key variables with 160 backgrounds. The entire experiment consisted of 800 trials. Twenty observers were asked to detect the quadrant of the image into which the mass was located. There was a statistically significant improvement in detection performance for masses when the window width was set at 1024 with a level of 3328. IW should be tested in the clinic to determine whether mass detection performance in real mammograms is improved.

Key words: mammography, breast mass, image processing

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (1.8 MB).

Footnotes

This research is supported by NIH PO1-CA 47982, NIH RO1-65583, and DOD DAMD17-94-J-4345.

References

  • 1.Rosenman J, Roe CA, Cromartie R, et al. Portal film enhancement: Technique and clinical utility. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Physics. 1993;25:333–338. doi: 10.1016/0360-3016(93)90357-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Homer MJ. Mammographic interpretation: A practical approach. New York, NY: McGraw Hill; 1991. pp. 4–5. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Pizer SM. Psychovisual issues in the display of medical images. In: Hoehne KH, editor. Pictorial Information Systems In Medicine. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1985. pp. 211–234. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Jain AK. Fundamentals of Digital Image Processing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1989. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.McSweeney MB, Sprawls P, Egan RL. Enhanced image mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1983;140:9–14. doi: 10.2214/ajr.140.1.9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Smathers RL, Bush E, Drace J, et al. Mammographic microcalcifications: Detection with xerography, screen-film, and digitized film display. Radiology. 1986;159:673–677. doi: 10.1148/radiology.159.3.3704149. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Chan HP, Doi K, Galhorta S, et al. Image feature analysis and computer-aided diagnosis in digital radiography: 1. Automated detection of microcalcifications in mammography. Med Phys. 1987;14:538–547. doi: 10.1118/1.596065. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.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. 1987;22:581–589. doi: 10.1097/00004424-198707000-00010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Hale DA, Cook JF, Baniqued Z, et al. Selective Digital Enhancement of Conventional Film Mammography. J Surg Oncol. 1994;55:42–46. doi: 10.1002/jso.2930550112. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.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. 1993;28:473–481. doi: 10.1097/00004424-199306000-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Yin F, Giger M, Doi K, et al. Computerized detection of masses in digital mammograms: Analysis of Bilateral Subtraction Images. Med Phys. 1991;18:955–963. doi: 10.1118/1.596610. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Hemminger BM, Johnston RE, Muller KE, et al. Comparison of clinical findings between intensity-windowed versus CLAHE presentation of chest CT images. SPIE Medical Imaging VI: Image Capture, Format and Display. 1992;1653:164–175. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Pizer SM, Zimmerman JB, Staab EV. Adaptive grey level assignment in CT scan display. J Comput Assist Tomog. 1984;8:300–305. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Puff DT, Cromartie R, Pisano ED. Evaluation and optimization of contrast enhancement methods for medical images. Proceedings of the SPIE Visualization in Biomedical Computing Conference. 1992;1808:336–346. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.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. 1994;7:161–171. doi: 10.1007/BF03168534. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Revesz G, Kundel HL, Graber MD. The influence of structured noise on the detection of radiologic abnormalities. Invest Radiol. 1974;9:479–486. doi: 10.1097/00004424-197411000-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Kundel HL, Revesz G. Lesion conspicuity, structured noise and reader error. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1976;126:1233–1238. doi: 10.2214/ajr.126.6.1233. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Revesz G, Kundel HL. Psychophysical studies of detection errors in chest radiology. Radiology. 1977;128:559–562. doi: 10.1148/123.3.559. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hemminger BM, Johnston RE, Rolland JR, et al. Introduction to perceptual linearization for video display systems for medical image presentation. J Digit Imaging. 1995;8:21–34. doi: 10.1007/BF03168052. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Shtern F. Digital mammography and related technologies: A perspective from the National Cancer Institute. Radiology. 1992;183:629–30. doi: 10.1148/radiology.183.3.1584908. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Pisano ED, Hemminger BM, Garrett W, et al: Does CLAHE image processing improve the detection of simulated masses in dense breasts in a laboratory setting? Presented at the Association of University Radiologists Meeting. Birmingham, AL, April 19, 1996
  • 22.Pisano ED, Hemminger BM, Garrett W, et al: Does CLAHE image processing improve the detection of simulated spiculations in dense breasts in a laboratory setting? Presented at the Association of University Radiologists Meeting. Birmingham, AL, April 19, 1996
  • 23.MacMillan NA, Creelman CD. Detection theory: A user guide. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1991. pp. 135–136. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Digital Imaging are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES