Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Full-field digital mammography image data storage reduction using a crop tool

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

 Purpose

The storage requirements for full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in a picture archiving and communication system are significant, so methods to reduce the data set size are needed. A FFDM crop tool for this purpose was designed, implemented, and tested.

Materials and methods

A total of 1,651 screening mammography cases with bilateral FFDMs were included in this study. The images were cropped using a DICOM editor while maintaining image quality. The cases were evaluated according to the breast volume (1/4, 2/4, 3/4, and 4/4) in the craniocaudal view. The image sizes between the cropped image group and the uncropped image group were compared. The overall image quality and reader’s preference were independently evaluated by the consensus of two radiologists.

Results

Digital storage requirements for sets of four uncropped to cropped FFDM images were reduced by 3.8 to 82.9 %. The mean reduction rates according to the 1/4–4/4 breast volumes were 74.7, 61.1, 38, and 24 %, indicating that the lower the breast volume, the smaller the size of the cropped data set. The total image data set size was reduced from 87 to 36.7 GB, or a 57.7 % reduction. The overall image quality and the reader’s preference for the cropped images were higher than those of the uncropped images.

Conclusion

FFDM mammography data storage requirements can be significantly reduced using a crop tool.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Slone RM, Foos DH, Whiting BR, Muka E, Rubin DA, Pilgram TK, Kohm KS, Young SS, Ho P, Hendrickson DD (2000) Assessment of visually lossless irreversible image compression: comparison of three methods by using an image-comparison workstation. Radiology 215(2):543–553

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Agarwal A, Rowberg AH, Kim Y (2003) Fast JPEG 2000 decoder and its use in medical imaging. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed 7(3):184–190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cosman PC, Davidson HC, Bergin CJ, Tseng CW, Moses LE, Riskin EA, Olshen RA, Gray RM (1994) Thoracic CT images: effect of lossy image compression on diagnostic accuracy. Radiology 190(2):517–524

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Erickson BJ, Manduca A, Palisson P, Persons KR, Ft Earnest, Savcenko V, Hangiandreou NJ (1998) Wavelet compression of medical images. Radiology 206(3):599–607

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Zheng B, Sumkin JH, Good WF, Maitz GS, Chang YH, Gur D (2000) Applying computer-assisted detection schemes to digitized mammograms after JPEG data compression: an assessment. Acad Radiol 7(8):595–602

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Cormack JB, Hanna LA, Conant EF, Fajardo LL, Bassett LW, D’Orsi CJ, Jong RA, Rebner M, Tosteson AN, Gatsonis CA (2008) Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology 246(2):376–383

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Conant EF, Fajardo LL, Bassett L, D’Orsi C, Jong R, Rebner M (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353(17):1773–1783

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Skaane P, Skjennald A (2004) 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 232(1):197–204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jenkins J, Murphy AE, Edmondson-Jones M, Sibbering DM, Turnbull AE (2014) Film reading in the East Midlands Breast Screening Programme—are we missing opportunities for earlier diagnosis? Clin Radiol 69(4):385–390

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Radiology. ACo (2003) Breast imaging reporting and data system, breast imaging atlas, 4th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston

    Google Scholar 

  11. Faccioli N, Perandini S, Comai A, D’Onofrio M (2009) Proper use of common image file formats in handling radiological images. La Radiol Med 114(3):484–495

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Graham RN, Perriss RW, Scarsbrook AF (2005) DICOM demystified: a review of digital file formats and their use in radiological practice. Clin Radiol 60(11):1133–1140

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kang BJ, Kim SH, Choi BG (2011) Comparison of full-field digital mammography workstation and conventional picture archiving and communication system in image quality and diagnostic performance. Clin Imaging 35(5):336–340

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kang BJ, Kim HS, Park CS, Choi JJ, Lee JH, Choi BG (2011) Acceptable compression ratio of full-field digital mammography using JPEG 2000. Clin Radiol 66(7):609–613

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Tamm EP, Thompson S, Venable SL, McEnery K (2002) Impact of multislice CT on PACS resources. J Digit Imaging 15:96–101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lee KH, Kim YH, Kim BH, Kim KJ, Kim TJ, Kim HJ, Hahn S (2007) Irreversible JPEG 2000 compression of abdominal CT for primary interpretation: assessment of visually lossless threshold. Eur Radiol 17(6):1529–1534

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ringl H, Schernthaner R, Sala E, El-Rabadi K, Weber M, Schima W, Herold CJ, Dixon AK (2008) Lossy 3D JPEG2000 compression of abdominal CT images in patients with acute abdominal complaints: effect of compression ratio on diagnostic confidence and accuracy. Radiology 248(2):476–484

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ringl H, Schernthaner RE, Bankier AA, Weber M, Prokop M, Herold CJ, Schaefer-Prokop C (2006) JPEG2000 compression of thin-section CT images of the lung: effect of compression ratio on image quality. Radiology 240(3):869–877

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Liang Z, Du X, Liu J, Yang Y, Rong D, Yao X, Li K (2008) Effects of different compression techniques on diagnostic accuracies of breast masses on digitized mammograms. Acta Radiol 49(7):747–751

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kocsis O, Costaridou L, Varaki L, Likaki E, Kalogeropoulou C, Skiadopoulos S, Panayiotakis G (2003) Visually lossless threshold determination for microcalcification detection in wavelet compressed mammograms. Eur Radiol 13(10):2390–2396

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Huffman J (2007) PACS, iSyntax and iSite, June 18–25

  22. Park JM, Franken EA Jr (2008) Triangulation of breast lesions: review and clinical applications. Curr Prob Diagn Radiol 37(1):1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Fallenberg EM, Dimitrijevic L, Diekmann F, Diekmann S, Kettritz U, Poellinger A, Bick U, Winzer KJ, Engelken F, Renz DM (2014) Impact of magnification views on the characterization of microcalcifications in digital mammography. RoFo : Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Rontgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin 186(3):274–280

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ko SY, Kim EK, Kim MJ, Moon HJ (2014) Mammographic density estimation with automated volumetric breast density measurement. Korean J Radiol Off J Korean Radiol Soc 15(3):313–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Skippage P, Wilkinson L, Allen S, Roche N, Dowsett M, A’Hern R (2013) Correlation of age and HRT use with breast density as assessed by Quantra. Breast J 19(1):79–86

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

Bong Joo Kang, Sung Hun Kim, Yeong Yi An, and Byung Gil Choi declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, 505 Banpo-Dong, Seocho-Ku, Seoul, 137-040, Korea

    Bong Joo Kang, Sung Hun Kim, Yeong Yi An & Byung Gil Choi

Authors
  1. Bong Joo Kang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sung Hun Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yeong Yi An
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Byung Gil Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Byung Gil Choi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kang, B.J., Kim, S.H., An, Y.Y. et al. Full-field digital mammography image data storage reduction using a crop tool. Int J CARS 10, 509–515 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-014-1087-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-014-1087-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation