Mammographic density assessed on paired raw and processed digital images and on paired screen-film and digital images across three mammography systems.

Breast Cancer Res 2016 12 19;18(1):130. Epub 2016 Dec 19.

Section of Environment and Radiation, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 150 cours Albert Thomas, 69372, Lyon, Cedex 09, France.

Background: Inter-women and intra-women comparisons of mammographic density (MD) are needed in research, clinical and screening applications; however, MD measurements are influenced by mammography modality (screen film/digital) and digital image format (raw/processed). We aimed to examine differences in MD assessed on these image types.

Methods: We obtained 1294 pairs of images saved in both raw and processed formats from Hologic and General Electric (GE) direct digital systems and a Fuji computed radiography (CR) system, and 128 screen-film and processed CR-digital pairs from consecutive screening rounds. Four readers performed Cumulus-based MD measurements (n = 3441), with each image pair read by the same reader. Multi-level models of square-root percent MD were fitted, with a random intercept for woman, to estimate processed-raw MD differences.

Results: Breast area did not differ in processed images compared with that in raw images, but the percent MD was higher, due to a larger dense area (median 28.5 and 25.4 cm respectively, mean √dense area difference 0.44 cm (95% CI: 0.36, 0.52)). This difference in √dense area was significant for direct digital systems (Hologic 0.50 cm (95% CI: 0.39, 0.61), GE 0.56 cm (95% CI: 0.42, 0.69)) but not for Fuji CR (0.06 cm (95% CI: -0.10, 0.23)). Additionally, within each system, reader-specific differences varied in magnitude and direction (p < 0.001). Conversion equations revealed differences converged to zero with increasing dense area. MD differences between screen-film and processed digital on the subsequent screening round were consistent with expected time-related MD declines.

Conclusions: MD was slightly higher when measured on processed than on raw direct digital mammograms. Comparisons of MD on these image formats should ideally control for this non-constant and reader-specific difference.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13058-016-0787-0DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5168805PMC
December 2016
76 Reads

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

digital images
8
direct digital
8
raw processed
8
√dense area
8
digital systems
8
mammographic density
8
digital
5
images
5
random intercept
4
intercept woman
4
woman estimate
4
fitted random
4
percent fitted
4
multi-level models
4
models square-root
4
square-root percent
4
estimate processed-raw
4
images compared
4
area
4
differ processed
4

References

(Supplied by CrossRef)

NF Boyd et al.
N Engl J Med. 2007

J Warwick et al.
Breast Cancer Res 2014

J Cuzick et al.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011

JT Schousboe et al.
Ann Intern Med. 2011

C Nickson et al.
Breast Cancer Res. 2013

TL Nguyen et al.
Breast Cancer Res. 2015

A Eng et al.
Breast Cancer Res. 2014

BM Keller et al.
Breast Cancer Res. 2015

CG Woolcott et al.
Am J Epidemiol. 2014

BM Keller et al.
Acad Radiol. 2013

CM Kuzmiak et al.
Med Phys. 2005

Similar Publications