Dataset Information

How does image quality affect radiologists' perceived ability for image interpretation and lesion detection in digital mammography?

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To study how radiologists' perceived ability to interpret digital mammography (DM) images is affected by decreases in image quality.

Methods

One view from 45 DM cases (including 30 cancers) was degraded to six levels each of two acquisition-related issues (lower spatial resolution and increased quantum noise) and three post-processing-related issues (lower and higher contrast and increased correlated noise) seen during clinical evaluation of DM systems. The images were shown to fifteen breast screening radiologists from five countries. Aware of lesion location, the radiologists selected the most-degraded mammogram (indexed from 1 (reference) to 7 (most degraded)) they still felt was acceptable for interpretation. The median selected index, per degradation type, was calculated separately for calcification and soft tissue (including normal) cases. Using the two-sided, non-parametric Mann-Whitney test, the median indices for each case and degradation type were compared.

Results

Radiologists were not tolerant to increases (medians: 1.5 (calcifications) and 2 (soft tissue)) or decreases (median: 2, for both types) in contrast, but were more tolerant to correlated noise (median: 3, for both types). Increases in quantum noise were tolerated more for calcifications than for soft tissue cases (medians: 3 vs. 4, p = 0.02). Spatial resolution losses were considered less acceptable for calcification detection than for soft tissue cases (medians: 3.5 vs. 5, p = 0.001).

Conclusions

Perceived ability of radiologists for image interpretation in DM was affected not only by image acquisition-related issues but also by image post-processing issues, and some of those issues affected calcification cases more than soft tissue cases.

Key points

• Lower spatial resolution and increased quantum noise affected the radiologists' perceived ability to interpret calcification cases more than soft tissue lesion or normal cases. • Post-acquisition image processing-related effects, not only image acquisition-related effects, also impact the perceived ability of radiologists to interpret images and detect lesions. • In addition to current practices, post-acquisition image processing-related effects need to also be considered during the testing and evaluation of digital mammography systems.

SUBMITTER: Boita J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8213590 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesQuality assurance (QA) of image interpretation plays a key role in screening and diagnostic mammography, maintaining minimum standards and supporting continuous improvement in interpreting images. However, the QA structure across Europe shows considerable variation. The European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) conducted a survey among the members to collect information on radiologists' preferences regarding QA measures in mammography.Materials and methodsAn anonymous online survey consisting of 25 questions was distributed to all EUSOBI members and national breast radiology bodies in Europe. The questions were designed to collect demographic characteristics, information on responders' mammography workload and data about QA measures currently used in their country. Data was analysed using descriptive statistical analysis, the χ2 test, linear regression, and Durbin-Watson statistic test.ResultsIn total, 251 breast radiologists from 34 countries completed the survey. Most respondents were providing both screening and symptomatic services (137/251, 54.6%), working in an academic hospital (85/251, 33.9%) and reading 1000-4999 cases per year (109/251, 43.4%). More than half of them (133/251, 53%) had established QA measures in their workplace. Although less than one-third (71/251, 28.3%) had to participate in regular performance testing, the vast majority (190/251, 75.7%) agreed that a mandatory test would be helpful to improve their skills.ConclusionQA measures were in place for more than half of the respondents working in screening and diagnostic mammography to evaluate their breast imaging performance. Although there were substantial differences between countries, the importance of having QA in the workplace and implemented was widely acknowledged by radiologists.Clinical relevance statementAlthough several quality assurance (QA) measures of image interpretation are recommended by European bodies or national organisations, the QA in mammography is quite heterogenous between countries and reporting settings, and not always actively implemented across Europe.Key pointsThe first survey that presents radiologists' preferences regarding QA measures of image interpretation in mammography. Quality assurance measures in the workplace are better-established for breast screening compared to diagnostic mammography. Radiologists consider that performance tests would help to improve their mammography interpretation skills.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the image quality and lesion detectability of lower-dose CT (LDCT) of the abdomen and pelvis obtained using a deep learning image reconstruction (DLIR) algorithm compared with those of standard-dose CT (SDCT) images.Materials and methodsThis retrospective study included 123 patients (mean age ± standard deviation, 63 ± 11 years; male:female, 70:53) who underwent contrast-enhanced abdominopelvic LDCT between May and August 2020 and had prior SDCT obtained using the same CT scanner within a year. LDCT images were reconstructed with hybrid iterative reconstruction (h-IR) and DLIR at medium and high strengths (DLIR-M and DLIR-H), while SDCT images were reconstructed with h-IR. For quantitative image quality analysis, image noise, signal-to-noise ratio, and contrast-to-noise ratio were measured in the liver, muscle, and aorta. Among the three different LDCT reconstruction algorithms, the one showing the smallest difference in quantitative parameters from those of SDCT images was selected for qualitative image quality analysis and lesion detectability evaluation. For qualitative analysis, overall image quality, image noise, image sharpness, image texture, and lesion conspicuity were graded using a 5-point scale by two radiologists. Observer performance in focal liver lesion detection was evaluated by comparing the jackknife free-response receiver operating characteristic figures-of-merit (FOM).ResultsLDCT (35.1% dose reduction compared with SDCT) images obtained using DLIR-M showed similar quantitative measures to those of SDCT with h-IR images. All qualitative parameters of LDCT with DLIR-M images but image texture were similar to or significantly better than those of SDCT with h-IR images. The lesion detectability on LDCT with DLIR-M images was not significantly different from that of SDCT with h-IR images (reader-averaged FOM, 0.887 vs. 0.874, respectively; p = 0.581).ConclusionOverall image quality and detectability of focal liver lesions is preserved in contrast-enhanced abdominopelvic LDCT obtained with DLIR-M relative to those in SDCT with h-IR.