File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Mammographic Density Assessed On Paired Raw And Processed Digital Images And On Paired Screen-film And Digital Images Across Three Mammography Systems

TitleMammographic Density Assessed On Paired Raw And Processed Digital Images And On Paired Screen-film And Digital Images Across Three Mammography Systems
Authors
Issue Date2016
PublisherBioMed Central Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at http://breast-cancer-research.com/
Citation
Breast Cancer Research, 2016, v. 18, p. 130:1-12 How to Cite?
AbstractBACKGROUND: 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.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/245311
ISSN
2017 Impact Factor: 6.142
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 3.133
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBurton, A-
dc.contributor.authorByrnes, G-
dc.contributor.authorStone, J-
dc.contributor.authorTamimi, RM-
dc.contributor.authorHeine, J-
dc.contributor.authorVachon, C-
dc.contributor.authorOzmen, V-
dc.contributor.authorPereira, A-
dc.contributor.authorGarmendia, ML-
dc.contributor.authorScott, C-
dc.contributor.authorHipwell, JH-
dc.contributor.authorDickens, C-
dc.contributor.authorSchüz, J-
dc.contributor.authorAribal, ME-
dc.contributor.authorBertrand, K-
dc.contributor.authorKwong, A-
dc.contributor.authorGiles, GG-
dc.contributor.authorHopper, J-
dc.contributor.authorPérez Gómez, B-
dc.contributor.authorPollán, M-
dc.contributor.authorTeo, SH-
dc.contributor.authorMariapun, S-
dc.contributor.authorTaib, NAM-
dc.contributor.authorLajous, M-
dc.contributor.authorLopez-Riduara, R-
dc.contributor.authorRice, M-
dc.contributor.authorRomieu, I-
dc.contributor.authorFlugelman, AZ-
dc.contributor.authorUrsin, G-
dc.contributor.authorQureshi, S-
dc.contributor.authorMa, H-
dc.contributor.authorLee, E-
dc.contributor.authorSirous, R-
dc.contributor.authorSirous, M-
dc.contributor.authorLee, JW-
dc.contributor.authorKim, J-
dc.contributor.authorSalem, D-
dc.contributor.authorKamal, R-
dc.contributor.authorHartman, M-
dc.contributor.authorMiao, H-
dc.contributor.authorChia, KS-
dc.contributor.authorNagata, C-
dc.contributor.authorVinayak, S-
dc.contributor.authorNdumia, R-
dc.contributor.authorvan Gils, CH-
dc.contributor.authorWanders, JOP-
dc.contributor.authorPeplonska, B-
dc.contributor.authorBukowska, A-
dc.contributor.authorAllen, S-
dc.contributor.authorVinnicombe, S-
dc.contributor.authorMoss, S-
dc.contributor.authorChiarelli, AM-
dc.contributor.authorLinton, L-
dc.contributor.authorMaskarinec, G-
dc.contributor.authorYaffe, MJ-
dc.contributor.authorBoyd, NF-
dc.contributor.authordos-Santos-Silva, I-
dc.contributor.authorMcCormack, VA-
dc.date.accessioned2017-09-18T02:08:22Z-
dc.date.available2017-09-18T02:08:22Z-
dc.date.issued2016-
dc.identifier.citationBreast Cancer Research, 2016, v. 18, p. 130:1-12-
dc.identifier.issn1465-542X-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/245311-
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: 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.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherBioMed Central Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at http://breast-cancer-research.com/-
dc.relation.ispartofBreast Cancer Research-
dc.rightsBreast Cancer Research. Copyright © BioMed Central Ltd.-
dc.rightsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.-
dc.titleMammographic Density Assessed On Paired Raw And Processed Digital Images And On Paired Screen-film And Digital Images Across Three Mammography Systems-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.emailKwong, A: avakwong@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityKwong, A=rp01734-
dc.description.naturepublished_or_final_version-
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s13058-016-0787-0-
dc.identifier.hkuros275664-
dc.identifier.volume18-
dc.identifier.spage130:1-
dc.identifier.epage12-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000391503900002-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdom-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats