Optimal gradation processing parameter for soft-copy reading of digital mammogram: Comparison between the parameter recommended for hard-copy and other parameters

Takeshi Kamitani, Hidetake Yabuuchi, Hiroyasu Soeda, Yoshio Matsuo, Takashi Okafuji, Taro Setoguchi, Shuji Sakai, Masamitsu Hatakenaka, Nobuhide Ishii, Hiroshi Honda

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate optimal gradation processing parameter for soft-copy reading comparing the parameter recommended for hard-copy with other parameters. Materials and methods: Digital mammograms using a Computed Radiography system were evaluated. The gradation processing parameter recommended by the manufacturer was GA (1.2). We prepared seven parameters that changed the degree of contrast: GA (0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, and 1.8). Images of an anthropomorphic breast phantom were displayed on a 5-megapixel liquid crystal display monitor using each parameter. Three readers independently assessed each image, and scored for the following items: intramammary contrast, extramammary contrast, sharpness, and graininess. Total score was calculated in each parameter. We also displayed normal mammograms of nine cases: three with a scattered fibroglandular density, three with a heterogeneously dense breast, and three with an extremely dense breast. These were displayed using GA (1.2) or using parameters with a higher total score than GA (1.2) in the phantom test. Three readers assessed each mammogram as in the phantom test. Results: In phantom test, GA (1.4), GA (1.6), and GA (1.8) obtained higher scores than GA (1.2). In normal cases tested using these parameters, GA (1.4) obtained the highest score. This was significantly higher than that of GA (1.2) (P = 0.004). The score obtained for GA (1.4) was the highest in cases with extremely dense and heterogeneously dense breast tissue, though there was no statistically significant difference. Conclusion: Soft-copy image quality was improved by gradient processing using higher contrast parameter than that routinely used in hard-copy, especially in dense breast cases.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)309-312
Number of pages4
JournalEuropean Journal of Radiology
Volume66
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 1 2008

Fingerprint

Reading
Breast
Liquid Crystals
Radiography

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Optimal gradation processing parameter for soft-copy reading of digital mammogram : Comparison between the parameter recommended for hard-copy and other parameters. / Kamitani, Takeshi; Yabuuchi, Hidetake; Soeda, Hiroyasu; Matsuo, Yoshio; Okafuji, Takashi; Setoguchi, Taro; Sakai, Shuji; Hatakenaka, Masamitsu; Ishii, Nobuhide; Honda, Hiroshi.

In: European Journal of Radiology, Vol. 66, No. 2, 01.05.2008, p. 309-312.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kamitani, Takeshi ; Yabuuchi, Hidetake ; Soeda, Hiroyasu ; Matsuo, Yoshio ; Okafuji, Takashi ; Setoguchi, Taro ; Sakai, Shuji ; Hatakenaka, Masamitsu ; Ishii, Nobuhide ; Honda, Hiroshi. / Optimal gradation processing parameter for soft-copy reading of digital mammogram : Comparison between the parameter recommended for hard-copy and other parameters. In: European Journal of Radiology. 2008 ; Vol. 66, No. 2. pp. 309-312.
@article{850fe8b73097460fb88e7e67123cfac3,
title = "Optimal gradation processing parameter for soft-copy reading of digital mammogram: Comparison between the parameter recommended for hard-copy and other parameters",
abstract = "Purpose: To investigate optimal gradation processing parameter for soft-copy reading comparing the parameter recommended for hard-copy with other parameters. Materials and methods: Digital mammograms using a Computed Radiography system were evaluated. The gradation processing parameter recommended by the manufacturer was GA (1.2). We prepared seven parameters that changed the degree of contrast: GA (0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, and 1.8). Images of an anthropomorphic breast phantom were displayed on a 5-megapixel liquid crystal display monitor using each parameter. Three readers independently assessed each image, and scored for the following items: intramammary contrast, extramammary contrast, sharpness, and graininess. Total score was calculated in each parameter. We also displayed normal mammograms of nine cases: three with a scattered fibroglandular density, three with a heterogeneously dense breast, and three with an extremely dense breast. These were displayed using GA (1.2) or using parameters with a higher total score than GA (1.2) in the phantom test. Three readers assessed each mammogram as in the phantom test. Results: In phantom test, GA (1.4), GA (1.6), and GA (1.8) obtained higher scores than GA (1.2). In normal cases tested using these parameters, GA (1.4) obtained the highest score. This was significantly higher than that of GA (1.2) (P = 0.004). The score obtained for GA (1.4) was the highest in cases with extremely dense and heterogeneously dense breast tissue, though there was no statistically significant difference. Conclusion: Soft-copy image quality was improved by gradient processing using higher contrast parameter than that routinely used in hard-copy, especially in dense breast cases.",
author = "Takeshi Kamitani and Hidetake Yabuuchi and Hiroyasu Soeda and Yoshio Matsuo and Takashi Okafuji and Taro Setoguchi and Shuji Sakai and Masamitsu Hatakenaka and Nobuhide Ishii and Hiroshi Honda",
year = "2008",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.06.013",
language = "English",
volume = "66",
pages = "309--312",
journal = "European Journal of Radiology",
issn = "0720-048X",
publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Optimal gradation processing parameter for soft-copy reading of digital mammogram

T2 - Comparison between the parameter recommended for hard-copy and other parameters

AU - Kamitani, Takeshi

AU - Yabuuchi, Hidetake

AU - Soeda, Hiroyasu

AU - Matsuo, Yoshio

AU - Okafuji, Takashi

AU - Setoguchi, Taro

AU - Sakai, Shuji

AU - Hatakenaka, Masamitsu

AU - Ishii, Nobuhide

AU - Honda, Hiroshi

PY - 2008/5/1

Y1 - 2008/5/1

N2 - Purpose: To investigate optimal gradation processing parameter for soft-copy reading comparing the parameter recommended for hard-copy with other parameters. Materials and methods: Digital mammograms using a Computed Radiography system were evaluated. The gradation processing parameter recommended by the manufacturer was GA (1.2). We prepared seven parameters that changed the degree of contrast: GA (0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, and 1.8). Images of an anthropomorphic breast phantom were displayed on a 5-megapixel liquid crystal display monitor using each parameter. Three readers independently assessed each image, and scored for the following items: intramammary contrast, extramammary contrast, sharpness, and graininess. Total score was calculated in each parameter. We also displayed normal mammograms of nine cases: three with a scattered fibroglandular density, three with a heterogeneously dense breast, and three with an extremely dense breast. These were displayed using GA (1.2) or using parameters with a higher total score than GA (1.2) in the phantom test. Three readers assessed each mammogram as in the phantom test. Results: In phantom test, GA (1.4), GA (1.6), and GA (1.8) obtained higher scores than GA (1.2). In normal cases tested using these parameters, GA (1.4) obtained the highest score. This was significantly higher than that of GA (1.2) (P = 0.004). The score obtained for GA (1.4) was the highest in cases with extremely dense and heterogeneously dense breast tissue, though there was no statistically significant difference. Conclusion: Soft-copy image quality was improved by gradient processing using higher contrast parameter than that routinely used in hard-copy, especially in dense breast cases.

AB - Purpose: To investigate optimal gradation processing parameter for soft-copy reading comparing the parameter recommended for hard-copy with other parameters. Materials and methods: Digital mammograms using a Computed Radiography system were evaluated. The gradation processing parameter recommended by the manufacturer was GA (1.2). We prepared seven parameters that changed the degree of contrast: GA (0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, and 1.8). Images of an anthropomorphic breast phantom were displayed on a 5-megapixel liquid crystal display monitor using each parameter. Three readers independently assessed each image, and scored for the following items: intramammary contrast, extramammary contrast, sharpness, and graininess. Total score was calculated in each parameter. We also displayed normal mammograms of nine cases: three with a scattered fibroglandular density, three with a heterogeneously dense breast, and three with an extremely dense breast. These were displayed using GA (1.2) or using parameters with a higher total score than GA (1.2) in the phantom test. Three readers assessed each mammogram as in the phantom test. Results: In phantom test, GA (1.4), GA (1.6), and GA (1.8) obtained higher scores than GA (1.2). In normal cases tested using these parameters, GA (1.4) obtained the highest score. This was significantly higher than that of GA (1.2) (P = 0.004). The score obtained for GA (1.4) was the highest in cases with extremely dense and heterogeneously dense breast tissue, though there was no statistically significant difference. Conclusion: Soft-copy image quality was improved by gradient processing using higher contrast parameter than that routinely used in hard-copy, especially in dense breast cases.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=43049150435&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=43049150435&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.06.013

DO - 10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.06.013

M3 - Article

C2 - 17659858

AN - SCOPUS:43049150435

VL - 66

SP - 309

EP - 312

JO - European Journal of Radiology

JF - European Journal of Radiology

SN - 0720-048X

IS - 2

ER -