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
KeywordsBreast cancer
Breast density
Image processing
Mammographic density assessment
Methods
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
2018 Impact Factor: 5.676
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.subjectBreast cancer-
dc.subjectBreast density-
dc.subjectImage processing-
dc.subjectMammographic density assessment-
dc.subjectMethods-
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.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85006762123-
dc.identifier.hkuros275664-
dc.identifier.volume18-
dc.identifier.spage130:1-
dc.identifier.epage12-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000391503900002-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdom-
dc.identifier.issnl1465-5411-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats