Mammographic Density Assessed on Paired Raw and Processed Digital Images and on Paired Screen-Film and Digital Images Across Three Mammography Systems

Mammographic Density Assessed on Paired Raw and Processed Digital Images and on Paired Screen-Film and Digital Images Across Three Mammography Systems Publisher Pubmed

Burton A¹ ; Byrnes G¹ ; Stone J² ; Tamimi RM³ ; Heine J⁴ ; Vachon C⁵ ; Ozmen V⁶ ; Pereira A⁷ ; Garmendia ML⁸ ; Scott C⁵ ; Hipwell JH⁸ ; Dickens C⁹ ; Schuz J¹ ; Aribal ME¹⁰ Show All Authors

Burton A¹
Byrnes G¹
Stone J²
Tamimi RM³
Heine J⁴
Vachon C⁵
Ozmen V⁶
Pereira A⁷
Garmendia ML⁸
Scott C⁵
Hipwell JH⁸
Dickens C⁹
Schuz J¹
Aribal ME¹⁰
Bertrand K¹¹
Kwong A^{12, 13}
Giles GG^{14, 15}
Hopper J¹⁵
Perez Gomez B¹⁶
Pollan M¹⁶
Teo SH^{17, 18}
Mariapun S¹⁸
Taib NAM¹⁷
Lajous M^{19, 20}
Lopezriduara R²⁰
Rice M³
Romieu I²¹
Flugelman AA²²
Ursin G^{23, 24, 25}
Qureshi S²⁶
Ma H²⁷
Lee E²⁵
Sirous R²⁸
Sirous M²⁸
Lee JW²⁹
Kim J²⁹
Salem D³⁰
Kamal R³¹
Hartman M^{32, 33}
Miao H³³
Chia KS³⁴
Nagata C³⁵
Vinayak S³⁶
Ndumia R³⁶
Van Gils CH³⁷
Wanders JOP³⁷
Peplonska B³⁸
Bukowska A³⁸
Allen S³⁹
Vinnicombe S⁴⁰
Moss S⁴¹
Chiarelli AM⁴²
Linton L⁴³
Maskarinec G⁴⁴
Yaffe MJ⁴⁵
Boyd NF⁴³
Dossantossilva I⁴⁶
Mccormack VA¹

Show Affiliations

1. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Section of Environment and Radiation, 150 cours Albert Thomas, Lyon, Cedex 09, 69372, France
2. Centre for Genetic Origins of Health and Disease, Curtin University and the University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
3. Harvard Medical School, Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States
4. Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, United States
5. Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States
6. Istanbul University, Department of Surgery, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey
7. Institute of Nutrition and Food Technology, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile
8. University College London, Centre for Medical Image Computing, London, United Kingdom
9. University of the Witwatersrand, Faculty of Health Sciences, Johannesburg, South Africa
10. Marmara University School of Medicine Department of Radiology, Istanbul, Turkey
11. Boston University, Slone Epidemiology Center, Boston, MA, United States
12. The University of Hong Kong, Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Hong Kong
13. Hong Kong Sanatorium and Hospital, Department of Surgery, Hong Kong
14. Cancer Epidemiology Centre, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
15. The University of Melbourne, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
16. Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Instituto de Salud Carlos III and CIBERESP, Madrid, Spain
17. University Malaya Medical Centre, University Malaya, Breast Cancer Research Group, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
18. Cancer Research Malaysia, Subang Jaya, Malaysia
19. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Department of Global Health and Population, Boston, MA, United States
20. Center for Research on Population Health, Instituto Nacional de Salud Publica, Mexico City, Mexico
21. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Section of Nutrition and Metabolism, Lyon, France
22. National Cancer Control Center, Haifa, Israel
23. Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway
24. Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Oslo, Department of Nutrition, Oslo, Norway
25. University of Southern California, Department of Preventive Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, United States
26. Norwegian Center for Minority and Migrant Health Research (NAKMI), Oslo, Norway
27. Beckman Research Institute, Department of Population Sciences, City of Hope, CA, United States
28. Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
29. Asan Medical Center, Department of Surgery, Seoul, South Korea
30. Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
31. Cairo University Hospitals, Woman Imaging Unit, Radiodiagnosis Department, Kasr El Aini, Cairo, Egypt
32. Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, Department of Surgery, Singapore, Singapore
33. National University of Singapore, Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, Singapore, Singapore
34. National University of Singapore, NUS Graduate School for Integrative Sciences and Engineering, Singapore, Singapore
35. Gifu University, Gifu, Japan
36. Aga Khan University Hospital, Nairobi, Kenya
37. University Medical Center Utrecht, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, Utrecht, Netherlands
38. Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine, Lodz, Poland
39. Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Department of Imaging, London, United Kingdom
40. Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Division of Cancer Research, Dundee, United Kingdom
41. Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
42. Cancer Care Ontario, Ontario Breast Screening Program, Toronto, Canada
43. Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada
44. University of Hawaii Cancer Center, Honolulu, HI, United States
45. University of Toronto, Medical Biophysics, Toronto, Canada
46. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Department of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London, United Kingdom

Source: Breast Cancer Research Published:2016

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).

Related Docs

View other Related Docs

1. Mammographic Density and Ageing: A Collaborative Pooled Analysis of Cross-Sectional Data From 22 Countries Worldwide, PLoS Medicine (2017)

2. International Consortium on Mammographic Density: Methodology and Population Diversity Captured Across 22 Countries, Cancer Epidemiology (2016)

3. Reproductive Factors and Mammographic Density Within the International Consortium of Mammographic Density: A Cross-Sectional Study, Breast Cancer Research (2024)

4. Investigation of Suspicious Microcalcifications by Magnification View Mammography Method Compared to Digital Zooming Method; a Comparative Clinical Study, Iranian Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Infertility (2024)

5. A Comparison of Full-Field Digital Mammography (Ffdm) With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (Dbt) in the Detection of Microcalcifications by Correlating Mammographic and Pathologic Findings, Immunopathologia Persa (2024)

6. Performance of Double Reading Mammography in an Iranian Population and Its Effect on Patient Outcome, Iranian Journal of Radiology (2013)

7. Breast Cancer Screening: Evidence of the Effect of Adjunct Ultrasound Screening in Women With Unilateral Mammography-Negative Dense Breasts, Journal of Research in Medical Sciences (2015)

8. Positive Predictive Value of Suspicious Findings in Standard Mammography According to Local Compression Mammography Results, Journal of Isfahan Medical School (2012)

Experts (# of related papers)

View all Related Experts

Atoosa Adibi (2)

Firoozeh Mostafavi (2)

Style	Citing Format
MLA	Burton A, et al.. "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, vol. 18, no. 1, 2016, pp. -.
APA	Burton A, Byrnes G, Stone J, Tamimi RM, Heine J, Vachon C, Ozmen V, Pereira A, Garmendia ML, Scott C, Hipwell JH, Dickens C, Schuz J, Aribal ME, Bertrand K, Kwong A, Giles GG, Hopper J, Perez Gomez B, ... Mccormack VA (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), -.
Chicago	Burton A, Byrnes G, Stone J, Tamimi RM, Heine J, Vachon C, Ozmen V, et al.. "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, no. 1 (2016): -.
Harvard	Burton A et al. (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), pp. -.
Vancouver	Burton A, Byrnes G, Stone J, Tamimi RM, Heine J, Vachon C, et al.. 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. 2016;18(1):-.
BibTex	@article{ author = {Burton A and Byrnes G and Stone J and Tamimi RM and Heine J and Vachon C and Ozmen V and Pereira A and Garmendia ML and Scott C and Hipwell JH and Dickens C and Schuz J and Aribal ME and Bertrand K and Kwong A and Giles GG and Hopper J and Perez Gomez B and Pollan M and Teo SH and Mariapun S and Taib NAM and Lajous M and Lopezriduara R and Rice M and Romieu I and Flugelman AA and Ursin G and Qureshi S and Ma H and Lee E and Sirous R and Sirous M and Lee JW and Kim J and Salem D and Kamal R and Hartman M and Miao H and Chia KS and Nagata C and Vinayak S and Ndumia R and Van Gils CH and Wanders JOP and Peplonska B and Bukowska A and Allen S and Vinnicombe S and Moss S and Chiarelli AM and Linton L and Maskarinec G and Yaffe MJ and Boyd NF and Dossantossilva I and Mccormack VA}, title = {Mammographic Density Assessed on Paired Raw and Processed Digital Images and on Paired Screen-Film and Digital Images Across Three Mammography Systems}, journal = {Breast Cancer Research}, volume = {18}, number = {1}, pages = {-}, year = {2016} }
RIS	TY - JOUR AU - Burton A AU - Byrnes G AU - Stone J AU - Tamimi RM AU - Heine J AU - Vachon C AU - Ozmen V AU - Pereira A AU - Garmendia ML AU - Scott C AU - Hipwell JH AU - Dickens C AU - Schuz J AU - Aribal ME AU - Bertrand K AU - Kwong A AU - Giles GG AU - Hopper J AU - Perez Gomez B AU - Pollan M AU - Teo SH AU - Mariapun S AU - Taib NAM AU - Lajous M AU - Lopezriduara R AU - Rice M AU - Romieu I AU - Flugelman AA AU - Ursin G AU - Qureshi S AU - Ma H AU - Lee E AU - Sirous R AU - Sirous M AU - Lee JW AU - Kim J AU - Salem D AU - Kamal R AU - Hartman M AU - Miao H AU - Chia KS AU - Nagata C AU - Vinayak S AU - Ndumia R AU - Van Gils CH AU - Wanders JOP AU - Peplonska B AU - Bukowska A AU - Allen S AU - Vinnicombe S AU - Moss S AU - Chiarelli AM AU - Linton L AU - Maskarinec G AU - Yaffe MJ AU - Boyd NF AU - Dossantossilva I AU - Mccormack VA TI - Mammographic Density Assessed on Paired Raw and Processed Digital Images and on Paired Screen-Film and Digital Images Across Three Mammography Systems JO - Breast Cancer Research VL - 18 IS - 1 SP - EP - PY - 2016 ER -

Science Communicator Platform

Authors

Authors Affiliations

Abstract