Skip to main content
Article
Mammographic density assessed on paired raw and processed digital images and on paired screen-film and digital images across three mammography systems
138
  • Anya Burton, International Agency for Research on Cancer
  • Graham Byrnes, International Agency for Research on Cancer
  • Jennifer Stone, Curtin University
  • Rulla M. Tamimi, Harvard Medical School
  • John Heine, Moffitt Cancer Center
  • Celine Vachon, Mayo Clinic
  • Vahit Ozmen, Istanbul University
  • Ana Pereira, University of Chile
  • Maria Luisa Garmendia, University College London
  • Christopher Scott, Mayo Clinic
  • John H. Hipwell, University College London
  • Caroline Dickens, University of the Witwatersrand
  • Joachim Schüz, International Agency for Research on Cancer
  • Mustafa Erkin Aribal, Marmara University
  • Kimberly Bertrand, Boston University
  • Ava Kwong, The University of Hong Kong
  • Graham G. Giles, The University of Melbourne
  • John Hopper, The University of Melbourne
  • Beatriz Pérez Gómez, Instituto de Salud Carlos III and CIBERESP
  • Marina Pollán, Instituto de Salud Carlos III and CIBERESP
  • Soo-Hwang Teo, University Malaya
  • Shivaani Mariapun, Cancer Research Malaysia
  • Nur Aishah Mohd Taib, University Malaya
  • Martín Lajous, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
  • Ruy Lopez-Riduara, Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública
  • Megan Rice, Harvard Medical School
  • Isabelle Romieu, International Agency for Research on Cancer
  • Anath Arzee Flugelman, National Cancer Control Center
  • Giske Ursin, University of Oslo
  • Samera Qureshi, Norwegian Center for Minority and Migrant Health Research (NAKMI)
  • Huiyan Ma, Beckman Research Institute
  • Eunjung Lee, University of Southern California
  • Reza Sirous, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences
  • Mehri Sirous, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences
  • Jong Won Lee, Asan Medical Center
  • Jisun Kim, Asan Medical Center
  • Dorria Salem, Cairo University
  • Rasha Kamal, Cairo University
  • Mikael Hartman, National University of Singapore
  • Hui Miao, National University of Singapore
  • Kee-Seng Chia, National University of Singapore
  • Chisato Nagata, Gifu University
  • Sudhir Vinayak, Aga Khan University
  • Rose Ndumia, Aga Khan University
  • Carla H. van Gils, University Medical Center Utrecht
  • Johanna O. P. Wanders, University Medical Center Utrecht
  • Beata Peplonska, Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine
  • Agnieszka Bukowska, Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine
  • Steve Allen, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust
  • Sarah Vinnicombe, Ninewells Hospital & Medical School
  • Sue Moss, Queen Mary University of London
  • Anna M. Chiarelli, Cancer Care Ontario
  • Linda Linton, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre
  • Gertraud Maskarinec, University of Hawaii Cancer Center
  • Martin J. Yaffe, University of Toronto
  • Norman F. Boyd, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre
  • Isabel dos-Santos-Silva, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
  • Valerie A. McCormack, International Agency for Research on Cancer
Publication Date
12-1-2016
Document Type
Article
Disciplines
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.

Citation Information
Anya Burton, Graham Byrnes, Jennifer Stone, Rulla M. Tamimi, et al.. "Mammographic density assessed on paired raw and processed digital images and on paired screen-film and digital images across three mammography systems" 138 Vol. 12 Iss. 18 (2016) p. 1
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/m-chiarelli/8/