|
|
||||||||
Computer Applications |
1 From the Thoracic Division, Department of Radiology, New York University Medical Center, 560 First Ave, New York, NY 10016. From the 2001 RSNA scientific assembly. Received March 12, 2002; revision requested May 24; final revision received October 3; accepted December 14. Supported by a Scholars Award from the RSNA Research and Education Foundation. Address correspondence to J.P.K. (e-mail: jane.ko@med.nyu.edu).
PURPOSE: To assess the effect of using a lossy Joint Photographic Experts Group standard for wavelet image compression, JPEG2000, on pulmonary nodule detection at low-dose computed tomography (CT).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred sets of lung CT data ("cases") were compressed to 30:1, 20:1, and 10:1 levels by using a wavelet-based JPEG2000 method, resulting in 400 test cases. Each case consisted of nine 1.25-mm sections that had been obtained with 2040 mAs. Four thoracic radiologists independently interpreted the test case images. Performance was measured by using area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (Az) and conventional sensitivity and specificity analyses.
RESULTS: There were 51 cases with and 49 without lung nodules. Az values were 0.984, 0.988, 0.972, 0.921, respectively, for original and 10:1, 20:1, and 30:1 compressed images. Az values decreased significantly at 30:1 (P = .014) but not at 10:1 compression, with a trend toward significant decrease at 20:1 (P = .051). Specificity values were unaffected by compression (>98.0% at all compression levels). Sensitivity values were 86.3% (176 of 204 test cases with nodules), 77.9% (159 of 204 cases), 76.5% (156 of 204 cases), and 70.1% (143 of 204 cases), respectively, for original and 10:1, 20:1, and 30:1 compressed images. Results of logistic regression model analysis confirmed the significant effects of compression rate and nodule attenuation, size, and location on sensitivity (P < .05).
CONCLUSION: While no reduction in nodule detection at 10:1 compression levels was demonstrated by using ROC analysis, a significant decrease in sensitivity was identified. Further investigation is needed before widespread use of image compression technology in low-dose chest CT can be recommended.
© RSNA, 2003
Index terms: Data compression Images, processing Images, quality Lung, CT, 60.12118 Lung, nodule, 60.31
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
K. J. Kim, B. Kim, K. H. Lee, T. J. Kim, R. Mantiuk, H.-S. Kang, and Y. H. Kim Regional Difference in Compression Artifacts in Low-Dose Chest CT Images: Effects of Mathematical and Perceptual Factors Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2008; 191(2): W30 - W37. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
V. Bajpai, K. H. Lee, B. Kim, K. J. Kim, T. J. Kim, Y. H. Kim, and H. S. Kang Differences in Compression Artifacts on Thin- and Thick-Section Lung CT Images Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2008; 191(2): W38 - W43. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
B. Kim, K. H. Lee, K. J. Kim, R. Mantiuk, H.-r. Kim, and Y. H. Kim Artifacts in Slab Average-Intensity-Projection Images Reformatted from JPEG 2000 Compressed Thin-Section Abdominal CT Data Sets Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2008; 190(6): W342 - W350. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
B. Kim, K. H. Lee, K. J. Kim, R. Mantiuk, S. Hahn, T. J. Kim, and Y. H. Kim Prediction of Perceptible Artifacts in JPEG 2000 Compressed Chest CT Images Using Mathematical and Perceptual Quality Metrics Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2008; 190(2): 328 - 334. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Fidler, B. Likar, and H. Rupert Ringl What Is Wrong with Compression Ratio in Lossy Image Compression? Radiology, October 1, 2007; 245(1): 299 - 300. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H. S. Woo, K. J. Kim, T. J. Kim, S. Hahn, B. Kim, Y. H. Kim, and K. H. Lee JPEG 2000 Compression of Abdominal CT: Difference in Tolerance Between Thin- and Thick-Section Images Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2007; 189(3): 535 - 541. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
Y. J. Jeong, C. A. Yi, and K. S. Lee Solitary Pulmonary Nodules: Detection, Characterization, and Guidance for Further Diagnostic Workup and Treatment Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2007; 188(1): 57 - 68. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H. Ringl, R. E. Schernthaner, A. A. Bankier, M. Weber, M. Prokop, C. J. Herold, and C. Schaefer-Prokop JPEG2000 Compression of Thin-Section CT Images of the Lung: Effect of Compression Ratio on Image Quality Radiology, September 1, 2006; 240(3): 869 - 877. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. P. Ko, J. Chang, E. Bomsztyk, J. S. Babb, D. P. Naidich, and H. Rusinek Effect of CT Image Compression on Computer-assisted Lung Nodule Volume Measurement Radiology, October 1, 2005; 237(1): 83 - 88. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Suryanarayanan, A. Karellas, S. Vedantham, S. M. Waldrop, and C. J. D'Orsi Detection of Simulated Lesions on Data-compressed Digital Mammograms Radiology, July 1, 2005; 236(1): 31 - 36. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||