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

Overview

abstract

  • 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.

authors

  • Burton, Anya
  • Byrnes, Graham
  • Stone, Jennifer
  • Tamimi, Rulla
  • Heine, John
  • Vachon, Celine
  • Ozmen, Vahit
  • Pereira, Ana
  • Garmendia, Maria Luisa
  • Scott, Christopher
  • 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 O P
  • 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

publication date

  • December 19, 2016

Research

keywords

  • Breast Density
  • Breast Neoplasms
  • Image Processing, Computer-Assisted
  • Mammography

Identity

PubMed Central ID

  • PMC5168805

Scopus Document Identifier

  • 85006762123

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  • 10.1117/1.JMI.2.1.015501

PubMed ID

  • 27993168

Additional Document Info

volume

  • 18

issue

  • 1