Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12105/4851
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 | Hipwell, John H. | Dickens, Caroline | Schüz, Joachim | Aribal, Mustafa Erkin | Bertrand, Kimberly | Kwong, Ava | Giles, Graham G. | Hopper, John | Perez-Gomez, Beatriz ISCIII | Pollan-Santamaria, Marina ISCIII | 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.
Breast Cancer Res. 2016; 18(1):130
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.
Files in this item