Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 14, 2026
Detection of Architectural Distortion in Prior Mammograms via Analysis of Oriented Patterns
Published on: August 30, 2013
Computer-aided detection systems for breast masses: comparison of performances on full-field digital mammograms and
Jun Wei1, Lubomir M Hadjiiski, Berkman Sahiner
1Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA. jvwei@umich.edu
Rationale And Objectives:
To compare the performance of computer aided detection (CAD) systems on pairs of full-field digital mammogram (FFDM) and screen-film mammogram (SFM) obtained from the same patients.
Materials And Methods:
Our CAD systems on both modalities have similar architectures that consist of five steps. For FFDMs, the input raw image is first log-transformed and enhanced by a multiresolution preprocessing scheme. For digitized SFMs, the input image is smoothed and subsampled to a pixel size of 100 microm x 100 microm. For both CAD systems, the mammogram after preprocessing undergoes a gradient field analysis followed by clustering-based region growing to identify suspicious breast structures. Each of these structures is refined in a local segmentation process. Morphologic and texture features are then extracted from each detected structure, and trained rule-based and linear discriminant analysis classifiers are used to differentiate masses from normal tissues. Two datasets, one with masses and the other without masses, were collected. The mass dataset contained 131 cases with 131 biopsy proven masses, of which 27 were malignant and 104 benign. The true locations of the masses were identified by an experienced Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA) radiologist. The no-mass data set contained 98 cases. The time interval between the FFDM and the corresponding SFM was 0 to 118 days.
Results:
Our CAD system achieved case-based sensitivities of 70%, 80%, and 90% at 0.9, 1.5, and 2.6 false positive (FP) marks/image, respectively, on FFDMs, and the same sensitivities at 1.0, 1.4, and 2.6 FP marks/image, respectively, on SFMs.
Conclusions:
The difference in the performances of our FFDM and SFM CAD systems did not achieve statistical significance.
