Comparing the Performance of Image Enhancement Methods to Detect Microcalcification Clusters in Digital Mammography

Hajar Moradmand--- Dept. of Biomedical Radiation Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran,
Saeed Setayeshi--- Dept. of Biomedical Radiation Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran,
Ali Reza Karimian--- Dept. of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran,
Mehri Sirous--- Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran,
Mohammad Esmaeil Akbari--- Cancer Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Abstract


294

Background: Mammography is the primary imaging technique for detection and diagnosis of breast cancer; however, the contrast of a mammogram image is often poor, especially for dense and glandular tissues. In these cases the radiologist may miss some diagnostically important microcalcifications. In order to improve diagnosis of cancer correctly, image enhancement technology is often used to enhance the image and help radiologists.

Methods: This paper presents a comparative study in digital mammography image enhancement based on four different algorithms: wavelet-based enhancement (Asymmetric Daubechies of order 8), Contrast-Limited Adaptive Histogram Equalization (CLAHE), morphological operators and unsharp masking. These algorithms have been tested on 114 clinical digital mammography images. The comparison for all the proposed image enhancement techniques was carried out to find out the best technique in enhancement of the mammogram images to detect microcalcifications.

Results: For evaluation of performance of image enhancement algorithms, the Contrast Improvement Index (CII) and profile intensity surface area distribution curve quality assessment have been used after any enhancement. The results of this study have shown that the average of CII is about 2.61 for wavelet and for CLAHE, unsharp masking and morphology operation are about 2.047, 1.63 and 1.315 respectively.  

Conclusion: Experimental results strongly suggest that the wavelet transformation can be more effective and improve significantly overall detection of the Computer-Aided Diagnosis (CAD) system especially for dense breast. Compare to other studies, our method achieved a higher CII.

Keywords: Breast neoplasm; Mammography; Image enhancement; Wavelet transform

Please cite this article as: Moradmand H, Setayeshi S, Karimian AR, Sirous M, Akbari ME. Comparing the Performance of Image Enhancement Methods to Detect Microcalcification Clusters in Digital Mammography. Iran J Cancer Prev.2012; 5(2): 61-8.

References

1. The American College of Radiology (ACR): ACR Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, Breast Imaging Atlas, Breast Cancer Facts and Figures, http://www.cancer.org, 2010.

2. Akbari ME, Khayamzadeh M, Khoshnevis SJ, Nafisi N, Akbari A. Five and Ten Years Survival in Breast Cancer Patients Mastectomies vs. Breast Conserving Surgeries Personal Experience, IJCP.2008; 2: 53-6.

3. Lazarus E, Mainiero MB, Schepps B, Koelliker SL, Livingston LS. BI-RADS Lexicon for US and Mammography: Interobserver Variability and Positive Predictive Value. Livingston Radiology.2006; 239:385- 91.

4. Cheng HD, Cai X, Chen X, Hu L, Lou X. Computer-aided detection and classification of microcalcifications in mammogram . The Journal of Pattern Recognition, Elsevier. 2003; 36: 2967–91.

5. Dean J, Ilvento V. Improved cancer detection using computer-aided detection with diagnostic and screening mammography: Prospective study of 104 cancers. American Journal of Roentology.2006; 187: 20–8.

6. Gandhi KR, Karnan M. Mammogram image enhancement and segmentation. IEEE International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Computing Research (ICCIC). 2010; 1:1 – 4

7. Veldkamp WJH, Karssemeijer N. Normalization of Local Contrast in Mammograms. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging. 2000; 19: 731–8.

8. Panetta K, Zhou Y, Agaian S,Jia H.  Nonlinear Unsharp Masking for Mammogram Enhancement. IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine.  2011; 15: 918 –28.

9. Morrow WM, Paranjape RB, Rangayyan RM. Region-based contrast enhancement of mammograms. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1992; 11:392 -406.

10. Ema T, Doi K, Nishikawa RM, Jiang Y, Papaioannou J. Image feature analysis and computer-aided diagnosis in mammography: reduction of false-positive clustered microcalcifications using local edge-gradient analysis. Med Phys. 1995; 22:161–9.

11. Cheng HD, Xu H. A Novel Fuzzy Logic Approach to Mammogram Contrast Enhancement. Information Sciences. 2002; 148: 167–84.

12. Dippel S, Stahl M, Wiemker R, BlaffertT..Multiscale ContrastEnhancement for Radiographies: Laplacian Pyramid versus FastWavelet Transform. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2002; 21: 343 –53.

13. Mencattini A, Salmeri M, Lojacono, Frigerio R, Caselli MF. Mammographic Images Enhancement and Denoising for Breast Cancer Detection Using Dyadic Wavelet Processing. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement.2008; 57:1422–30.

14. Stojić T, Reljin B. Enhancement of Microcalcifications in Digitized Mammograms: Multi fractal and Mathematical Morphology Approach. Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Transactions .2010; 38: 1-9.

15. Hassanien AE, Abraham A. Rough Morphology Hybrid Approach for Mammography Image Classification and Prediction.2008; 7: 17-42.

16. Dean J, Ilvento V. Improved cancer detection using computer-aided detection with diagnostic and screening mammography: Prospective study of 104 cancers. American Journal of Roentology. 2006; 20–8.

17. Lure FYM, Jones PW, Gaborski RS. Multi-resolution unsharp masking technique for mammogram image enhancement. In SPIE Proceedings.1996; 2710: 830–9.

18. Pizer SM, Amburn EOP, Austin JD. Adaptive histogram equalization and its variations.  Computer Vision Graphics Image Process.1987; 39: 355–68.

19. Gonzalez RC, Woods RE. Digital image processing, 1st ed. Re 18.ading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1992.

20. Tang J, Liu X, Sun Q. A Direct Image Contrast Enhancement Algorithm in the Wavelet Domain for Screening Mammograms. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing. 2009; 3:74 – 80.

21. Moradmand H, Setayeshi S, Khazaei H. Comparing Methods for segmentation of Microcalcification Clusters in Digitized Mammograms. International Journal of Computer Science Issues. 2011; 8: 104-108.

22. Singh S, Bovis K. An evaluation of contrast enhancement techniques for mammographic breast masses. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed.2005; 9:109–19.

23. Sivaramakrishna R, Obuchowski NA, ChilcoteWA, Cardenosa G,Powell KA. Comparing the performance of mammographic enhancement algorithms: a preference study. Am J Radiol. 2000; 175: 45–51.

24. Costaridou L, Sakellaropoulos P, Skiadopoulos S, Panayiotakis G. Locally adaptive wavelet contrast enhancement. In: L. Costaridou (Ed.) Medical Image Analysis Methods (Electrical Engineering & Applied Signal Processing), CRC Press, Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, FL, London. 2005; 6: 225–70.

25. Papadopoulosa A, Fotiadisb DI, Costaridou L. Improvement of microcalcification cluster detection in mammography utilizing image enhancement techniques. Computers in Biology and Medicine.2008; 38: 1045 –55.

26. Kang H, Ro Y, Kim S. Microcalcification detection using adaptive contrast enhancement on wavelet transformation and neural network. IEEE Trans INF&SYST. 2006; 89(3):1280-7.


Full Text:

PDF

148