Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-016-0787-0
Title: Mammographic density assessed on paired raw and processed digital images and on paired screen-film and digital images across three mammography systems
Authors: Burton, A
Byrnes, G
Stone, J
Keywords: adult
Article
breast cancer
breast density
computer assisted radiography
controlled study
digital imaging
female
human
image display
image processing
image quality
intermethod comparison
mammography
mammography system
measurement
X ray film
aged
breast tumor
diagnostic imaging
image processing
mammography
middle aged
pathology
procedures
very elderly
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Breast Density
Breast Neoplasms
Female
Humans
Image Processing, Computer-Assisted
Mammography
Middle Aged
Issue Date: 2016
Publisher: BioMed Central Ltd.
Citation: Burton, A, Byrnes, G, Stone, J (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. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-016-0787-0
Rights: Attribution 4.0 International
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 25.4cm2 respectively, mean ?dense area difference 0.44cm (95% CI: 0.36, 0.52)). This difference in ?dense area was significant for direct digital systems (Hologic 0.50cm (95% CI: 0.39, 0.61), GE 0.56cm (95% CI: 0.42, 0.69)) but not for Fuji CR (0.06cm (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. © 2016 The Author(s).
Source Title: Breast Cancer Research
URI: https://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/183584
ISSN: 1465-5411
DOI: 10.1186/s13058-016-0787-0
Rights: Attribution 4.0 International
Appears in Collections:Elements
Staff Publications

Show full item record
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormatAccess SettingsVersion 
10_1186_s13058-016-0787-0.pdf777.79 kBAdobe PDF

OPEN

NoneView/Download

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons