4.5 Article

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

Journal

BREAST CANCER RESEARCH
Volume 18, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/s13058-016-0787-0

Keywords

Breast density; Image processing; Mammographic density assessment; Breast cancer; Methods

Categories

Funding

  1. US National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health [R03CA167771]
  2. International Agency for Research on Cancer
  3. Cancer Research UK [14565] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. National Breast Cancer Foundation [PF-11-20] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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(2) respectively, mean root dense area difference 0.44 cm (95% CI: 0.36, 0.52)). This difference in root 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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available