Background
Running online training in mammography interpretation poses a challenge to radiologists
and reporting radiographers due to the large size of digital mammograms in DICOM format
and limited bandwidth capabilities of the users for image transmission. This study
aims to compare image quality between the full-quality with minimal compressed JPEG
and DICOM format of mammograms on a diagnostic monitor through the evaluation of radiologists
and radiographers.
Methods
Twelve participants including six radiologists and six radiographers participated
as observers in this study. The observers viewed 60 2D digital mammography screening
cases (22 cancer and 38 normal cases) in DICOM and minimal compressed JPEG formats
on a 5MP diagnostic monitor. A 5-point Likert scale was provided for observers to
compare the quality of mammograms between the two formats, with text anchors indicating
to one image being significantly better, slightly better or of equal quality in terms
of technical and diagnostic aspects. Nonparametric descriptive statistics were used
to evaluate the ratings of radiologists and radiographers in different characteristics
of mammograms of two image formats.
Results
The DICOM and JPEG images were statistically equivalent through ratings from radiographers
in brightness, contrast, dynamic range, sharpness, no significant distortion, no significant
noise, and background homogeneity in all mammograms. Similarly, most radiologists
rated DICOM and JPEG images clinically and statistically equivalent with respect to
difficulty of interpretation, brightness, contrast, dynamic range, sharpness, the
appearance of Cooper's ligaments, visibility of subtle microcalcifications, visibility
of structures at the margins of the breast. Normal cases were marginally favored by
radiologists in DICOM format (ranging from 0.4% to 5.3%) while cancer cases in JPEG
(ranging from 0.8% to 7.6%) received slightly higher rating.
Conclusions
Findings showed that baseline full-quality with minimal compression JPEG was equivalent
to the DICOM format of full-field digital mammograms which suggests that this type
of JPEG could be used for online training and education in radiology.
Key Words
Abbreviations:
DICOM (Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine), JPEG (Joint Photographic Experts Group), FFDM (Full-Field Digital Mammography), MLO (Medio-lateral oblique), CC (Cranio-caudal)To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Academic RadiologyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
REFERENCES
- An image multiresolution representation for lossless and lossy compression.IEEE Trans Image Process. 1996; 5: 1303-1310
- Clinical evaluation of compression ratios using JPEG2000 on computed radiography chest images.J Digit Imaging. 2002; 15: 78-83
American-College-of-Radiology. ACR technical standard for electronic practice of medical imaging. Iowa, USA: The American College of Radiology; 2007. https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/Practice-Parameters/elec-practice-medimag.pdf.
- Improvement of cancer detection on mammograms via BREAST test sets.Acad Radiol. 2019; 26: e341-e3e7
Brennan PC, Trieu PD, Tapia K, Ryan J, Mello-Thoms C, Lee W. BREAST: a novel strategy to improve the detection of breast cancer. In: Hiroshi Fujita TH, Chisako Muramatsu, eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science - The 12th International Workshop on Breast Imaging. 8539: Gifu, Japan: Springer, 2014; 438-43.
- Radiologist self-training: a study of cancer detection when reading mammograms at work clinics or workshops.J Cancer Educ. 2022; https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-022-02156-w
- A clinical comparison between conventional and digital mammography utilizing computed radiography.Br J Radiol. 1994; 67: 464-468
- 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. 2004; 232: 197-204
- A perceptual evaluation of JPEG 2000 image compression for digital mammography: contrast-detail characteristics.J Digit Imaging. 2004; 17: 64-70
- Comparative evaluation of JPEG and JPEG2000 compression in quantitative digital subtraction radiography.Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2002; 31: 379-384
- Increasing the number of gray shades in medical display systems–how much is enough?.J Digit Imaging. 2007; 20: 422-432
Article info
Publication history
Published online: December 23, 2022
Accepted:
November 13,
2022
Received in revised form:
November 8,
2022
Received:
September 17,
2022
Publication stage
In Press Corrected ProofIdentification
Copyright
© 2022 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
