Mammographic density assessed on paired raw and processed digital images and on paired screen-film and digital images across three mammography systems.
Burton, Anya;
Byrnes, Graham;
Stone, Jennifer;
Tamimi, Rulla M;
Heine, John;
Vachon, Celine;
Ozmen, Vahit;
Pereira, Ana;
Garmendia, Maria Luisa;
Scott, Christopher;
+48 more...Hipwell, John H;
Dickens, Caroline;
Schüz, Joachim;
Aribal, Mustafa Erkin;
Bertrand, Kimberly;
Kwong, Ava;
Giles, Graham G;
Hopper, John;
Pérez Gómez, Beatriz;
Pollán, Marina;
Teo, Soo-Hwang;
Mariapun, Shivaani;
Taib, Nur Aishah Mohd;
Lajous, Martín;
Lopez-Riduara, Ruy;
Rice, Megan;
Romieu, Isabelle;
Flugelman, Anath Arzee;
Ursin, Giske;
Qureshi, Samera;
Ma, Huiyan;
Lee, Eunjung;
Sirous, Reza;
Sirous, Mehri;
Lee, Jong Won;
Kim, Jisun;
Salem, Dorria;
Kamal, Rasha;
Hartman, Mikael;
Miao, Hui;
Chia, Kee-Seng;
Nagata, Chisato;
Vinayak, Sudhir;
Ndumia, Rose;
van Gils, Carla H;
Wanders, Johanna OP;
Peplonska, Beata;
Bukowska, Agnieszka;
Allen, Steve;
Vinnicombe, Sarah;
Moss, Sue;
Chiarelli, Anna M;
Linton, Linda;
Maskarinec, Gertraud;
Yaffe, Martin J;
Boyd, Norman F;
Dos-Santos-Silva, Isabel;
McCormack, Valerie A;
(2016)
Mammographic density assessed on paired raw and processed digital images and on paired screen-film and digital images across three mammography systems.
Breast cancer research, 18 (1).
130-.
ISSN 1465-5411
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-016-0787-0
Permanent Identifier
Use this Digital Object Identifier when citing or linking to this resource.
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 cm2 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.
