2026-06-14T03:38:17Zhttps://repisalud.isciii.es/rest/oai/request

oai:repisalud.isciii.es:20.500.12105/48512025-05-08T18:45:14Zcom_20.500.12105_2052com_20.500.12105_2051col_20.500.12105_19608

00925njm 22002777a 4500 dc Burton, Anya author Byrnes, Graham author Stone, Jennifer author Tamimi, Rulla M. author Heine, John author Vachon, Celine author Ozmen, Vahit author Pereira, Ana author Garmendia, Maria Luisa author Scott, Christopher author Hipwell, John H. author Dickens, Caroline author Schüz, Joachim author Aribal, Mustafa Erkin author Bertrand, Kimberly author Kwong, Ava author Giles, Graham G. author Hopper, John author Perez-Gomez, Beatriz author Pollan-Santamaria, Marina author Teo, Soo-Hwang author Mariapun, Shivaani author Taib, Nur Aishah Mohd author Lajous, Martín author López-Riduara, Ruy author Rice, Megan author Romieu, Isabelle author Flugelman, Anath Arzee author Ursin, Giske author Qureshi, Samera author Ma, Huiyan author Lee, Eunjung author Sirous, Reza author Sirous, Mehri author Lee, Jong Won author Kim, Jisun author Salem, Dorria author Kamal, Rasha author Hartman, Mikael author Miao, Hui author Chia, Kee-Seng author Nagata, Chisato author Vinayak, Sudhir author Ndumia, Rose author van Gils, Carla H author Wanders, Johanna O P author Peplonska, Beata author Bukowska, Agnieszka author Allen, Steve author Vinnicombe, Sarah author Moss, Sue author Chiarelli, Anna M author Linton, Linda author Maskarinec, Gertraud author Yaffe, Martin J. author Boyd, Norman F author Dos-Santos-Silva, Isabel author McCormack, Valerie A. author 2016-12-19 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. Breast Cancer Res. 2016; 18(1):130 10.1186/s13058-016-0787-0 1465-542X Breast Cancer Research 27993168 http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12105/4851 Breast density Image processing Mammographic density assessment Breast cancer Methods Mammographic density assessed on paired raw and processed digital images and on paired screen-film and digital images across three mammography systems