학술논문
Mammographic density assessed on paired raw and processed digital images and on paired screen-film and digital images across three mammography systems.
Document Type
Academic Journal
Author
Burton A; Section of Environment and Radiation, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 150 cours Albert Thomas, 69372, Lyon, Cedex 09, France. burtona@fellows.iarc.fr.; Byrnes G; Section of Environment and Radiation, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 150 cours Albert Thomas, 69372, Lyon, Cedex 09, France.; Stone J; Centre for Genetic Origins of Health and Disease, Curtin University and the University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.; Tamimi RM; Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.; Heine J; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.; Vachon C; Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.; Ozmen V; Department of Surgery, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey.; Pereira A; Institute of Nutrition and Food Technology, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile.; Garmendia ML; Centre for Medical Image Computing, University College London, London, UK.; Scott C; Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.; Hipwell JH; Centre for Medical Image Computing, University College London, London, UK.; Dickens C; Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.; Schüz J; Section of Environment and Radiation, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 150 cours Albert Thomas, 69372, Lyon, Cedex 09, France.; Aribal ME; Marmara University School of Medicine Department of Radiology, Istanbul, Turkey.; Bertrand K; Slone Epidemiology Center, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA.; Kwong A; Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, People's Republic of China.; Department of Surgery, Hong Kong Sanatorium and Hospital, Hong Kong, People's Republic of China.; Giles GG; Cancer Epidemiology Centre, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.; Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.; Hopper J; Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.; Pérez Gómez B; Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Instituto de Salud Carlos III and CIBERESP, Madrid, Spain.; Pollán M; Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Instituto de Salud Carlos III and CIBERESP, Madrid, Spain.; Teo SH; Breast Cancer Research Group, University Malaya Medical Centre, University Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.; Cancer Research Malaysia, Subang Jaya, Malaysia.; Mariapun S; Cancer Research Malaysia, Subang Jaya, Malaysia.; Taib NA; Breast Cancer Research Group, University Malaya Medical Centre, University Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.; Lajous M; Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.; Center for Research on Population Health, Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública, Mexico City, Mexico.; Lopez-Riduara R; Center for Research on Population Health, Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública, Mexico City, Mexico.; Rice M; Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.; Romieu I; Section of Nutrition and Metabolism, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.; Flugelman AA; National Cancer Control Center, Haifa, Israel.; Ursin G; Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway.; Department of Nutrition, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.; Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.; Qureshi S; Norwegian Center for Minority and Migrant Health Research (NAKMI), Oslo, Norway.; Ma H; Department of Population Sciences, Beckman Research Institute, City of Hope, CA, USA.; Lee E; Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.; Sirous R; Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.; Sirous M; Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.; Lee JW; Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.; Kim J; Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.; Salem D; Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.; Kamal R; Woman Imaging Unit, Radiodiagnosis Department, Kasr El Aini, Cairo University Hospitals, Cairo, Egypt.; Hartman M; Department of Surgery, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, Singapore, Singapore.; Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.; Miao H; Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.; Chia KS; NUS Graduate School for Integrative Sciences and Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.; Nagata C; Gifu University, Gifu, Japan.; Vinayak S; Aga Khan University Hospital, Nairobi, Kenya.; Ndumia R; Aga Khan University Hospital, Nairobi, Kenya.; van Gils CH; Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.; Wanders JO; Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.; Peplonska B; Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine, Łódz, Poland.; Bukowska A; Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine, Łódz, Poland.; Allen S; Department of Imaging, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.; Vinnicombe S; Division of Cancer Research, Ninewells Hospital & Medical School, Dundee, UK.; Moss S; Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.; Chiarelli AM; Ontario Breast Screening Program, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, Canada.; Linton L; Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada.; Maskarinec G; University of Hawaii Cancer Center, Honolulu, HI, USA.; Yaffe MJ; Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.; Boyd NF; Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada.; Dos-Santos-Silva I; Department of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.; McCormack VA; Section of Environment and Radiation, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 150 cours Albert Thomas, 69372, Lyon, Cedex 09, France.
Source
Publisher: BioMed Central Ltd Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 100927353 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1465-542X (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 14655411 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Breast Cancer Res Subsets: MEDLINE
Subject
Language
English
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.
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 cm
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.