Mammographic density assessed on paired raw and processed digital images and on paired screen-film and digital images across three mammography systems

被引:16
作者
Burton, Anya [1 ]
Byrnes, Graham [1 ]
Stone, Jennifer [2 ,3 ]
Tamimi, Rulla M. [4 ]
Heine, John [5 ]
Vachon, Celine [6 ]
Ozmen, Vahit [7 ]
Pereira, Ana [8 ]
Garmendia, Maria Luisa [9 ]
Scott, Christopher [6 ]
Hipwell, John H. [9 ]
Dickens, Caroline [10 ]
Schuz, Joachim [1 ]
Aribal, Mustafa Erkin [11 ]
Bertrand, Kimberly [12 ]
Kwong, Ava [13 ,14 ]
Giles, Graham G. [15 ,16 ]
Hopper, John [16 ]
Gomez, Beatriz Perez [17 ,18 ]
Pollan, Marina [17 ,18 ]
Teo, Soo-Hwang [19 ,20 ]
Mariapun, Shivaani [20 ]
Taib, Nur Aishah Mohd [19 ]
Lajous, Martin [21 ,22 ]
Lopez-Riduara, Ruy [22 ]
Rice, Megan [4 ]
Romieu, Isabelle [23 ]
Flugelman, Anath Arzee [24 ]
Ursin, Giske [25 ,26 ,27 ]
Qureshi, Samera [28 ]
Ma, Huiyan [29 ]
Lee, Eunjung [27 ]
Sirous, Reza [30 ]
Sirous, Mehri [30 ]
Lee, Jong Won [31 ]
Kim, Jisun [31 ]
Salem, Dorria [32 ]
Kamal, Rasha [33 ]
Hartman, Mikael [34 ,35 ]
Miao, Hui [35 ]
Chia, Kee-Seng [36 ]
Nagata, Chisato [37 ]
Vinayak, Sudhir [38 ]
Ndumia, Rose [38 ]
Van Gils, Carla H. [39 ]
Wanders, Johanna O. P. [39 ]
Peplonska, Beata [40 ]
Bukowska, Agnieszka [40 ]
Allen, Steve [41 ]
Vinnicombe, Sarah [42 ]
机构
[1] Int Agcy Res Canc, Sect Environm & Radiat, 150 Cours Albert Thomas, F-69372 Lyon 09, France
[2] Curtin Univ, Ctr Genet Origins Hlth & Dis, Perth, WA, Australia
[3] Univ Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia
[4] Harvard Med Sch, Brigham & Womens Hosp, Dept Med, Channing Div Network Med, Boston, MA USA
[5] H Lee Moffitt Canc Ctr & Res Inst, Tampa, FL USA
[6] Mayo Clin, Dept Hlth Sci Res, Rochester, MN USA
[7] Istanbul Univ, Istanbul Fac Med, Dept Surg, Istanbul, Turkey
[8] Univ Chile, Inst Nutr & Food Technol, Santiago, Chile
[9] UCL, Ctr Med Image Comp, London, England
[10] Univ Witwatersrand, Fac Hlth Sci, Johannesburg, South Africa
[11] Marmara Univ, Sch Med, Dept Radiol, Istanbul, Turkey
[12] Boston Univ, Slone Epidemiol Ctr, Boston, MA 02215 USA
[13] Univ Hong Kong, Dept Surg, Div Breast Surg, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
[14] Hong Kong Sanat & Hosp, Dept Surg, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
[15] Canc Council Victoria, Canc Epidemiol Ctr, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[16] Univ Melbourne, Melbourne Sch Populat & Global Hlth, Ctr Epidemiol & Biostat, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[17] Inst Salud Carlos III, Canc Epidemiol Unit, Madrid, Spain
[18] CIBERESP, Madrid, Spain
[19] Univ Malaya, Med Ctr, Breast Canc Res Grp, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
[20] Canc Res Malaysia, Subang Jaya, Malaysia
[21] Harvard TH Chan Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Global Hlth & Populat, Boston, MA USA
[22] Inst Nacl Salud Publ, Ctr Res Populat Hlth, Mexico City, DF, Mexico
[23] Int Agcy Res Canc, Sect Nutr & Metab, Lyon, France
[24] Natl Canc Control Ctr, Haifa, Israel
[25] Canc Registry Norway, Oslo, Norway
[26] Univ Oslo, Inst Basic Med Sci, Dept Nutr, Oslo, Norway
[27] Univ Southern Calif, Dept Prevent Med, Los Angeles, CA USA
[28] Norwegian Ctr Minor & Migrant Hlth Res NAKMI, Oslo, Norway
[29] City Hope Natl Med Ctr, Beckman Res Inst, Dept Populat Sci, Los Angeles, CA USA
[30] Isfahan Univ Med Sci, Esfahan, Iran
[31] Asan Med Ctr, Dept Surg, Seoul, South Korea
[32] Cairo Univ, Cairo, Egypt
[33] Kasr El Aini Cairo Univ Hosp, Radiodiag Dept, Woman Imaging Unit, Cairo, Egypt
[34] Yong Loo Lin Sch Med, Dept Surg, Singapore, Singapore
[35] Natl Univ Singapore, Saw Swee Hock Sch Publ Hlth, Singapore, Singapore
[36] Natl Univ Singapore, NUS Grad Sch Integrat Sci & Engn, Singapore, Singapore
[37] Gifu Univ, Gifu, Japan
[38] Aga Khan Univ Hosp, Nairobi, Kenya
[39] Univ Med Ctr Utrecht, Julius Ctr Hlth Sci & Primary Care, Utrecht, Netherlands
[40] Nofer Inst Occupat Med, Lodz, Poland
[41] Royal Marsden NHS Fdn Trust, Dept Imaging, London, England
[42] Ninewells Hosp & Med Sch, Div Canc Res, Dundee, Scotland
[43] Queen Mary Univ London, Wolfson Inst Prevent Med, London, England
[44] Canc Care Ontario, Ontario Breast Screening Program, Toronto, ON, Canada
[45] Princess Margaret Canc Ctr, Toronto, ON, Canada
[46] Univ Hawaii, Ctr Canc, Honolulu, HI 96822 USA
[47] Univ Toronto, Med Biophys, Toronto, ON, Canada
[48] London Sch Hyg & Trop Med, Dept Noncommunicable Dis Epidemiol, London, England
来源
BREAST CANCER RESEARCH | 2016年 / 18卷
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
Breast density; Image processing; Mammographic density assessment; Breast cancer; Methods; BREAST-CANCER RISK; PROGRAM;
D O I
10.1186/s13058-016-0787-0
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
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 cm(2) respectively, mean root dense area difference 0.44 cm (95% CI: 0.36, 0.52)). This difference in root 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.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 28 条
[1]   Technical and clinical breast cancer screening performance indicators for computed radiography versus direct digital radiography [J].
Bosmans, Hilde ;
De Hauwere, An ;
Lemmens, Kim ;
Zanca, Federica ;
Thierens, Hubert ;
Van Ongeval, Chantal ;
Van Herck, Koen ;
Van Steen, Andre ;
Martens, Patrick ;
Bleyen, Luc ;
Vande Putte, Gretel ;
Kellen, Eliane ;
Mortier, Griet ;
Van Limbergen, Erik .
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2013, 23 (10) :2891-2898
[2]   Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer [J].
Boyd, Norman F. ;
Guo, Helen ;
Martin, Lisa J. ;
Sun, Limei ;
Stone, Jennifer ;
Fishell, Eve ;
Jong, Roberta A. ;
Hislop, Greg ;
Chiarelli, Anna ;
Minkin, Salomon ;
Yaffe, Martin J. .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2007, 356 (03) :227-236
[3]   Impact of type of full-field digital image on mammographic density assessment and breast cancer risk estimation: a case-control study [J].
Busana, Marta Cecilia ;
Eng, Amanda ;
Denholm, Rachel ;
Dowsett, Mitch ;
Vinnicombe, Sarah ;
Allen, Steve ;
dos-Santos-Silva, Isabel .
BREAST CANCER RESEARCH, 2016, 18
[4]   Digital Compared with Screen-Film Mammography: Performance Measures in Concurrent Cohorts within an Organized Breast Screening Program [J].
Chiarelli, Anna M. ;
Edwards, Sarah A. ;
Prummel, Maegan V. ;
Muradali, Derek ;
Majpruz, Vicky ;
Done, Susan J. ;
Brown, Patrick ;
Shumak, Rene S. ;
Yaffe, Martin J. .
RADIOLOGY, 2013, 268 (03) :684-693
[5]   Tamoxifen-Induced Reduction in Mammographic Density and Breast Cancer Risk Reduction: A Nested Case-Control Study [J].
Cuzick, Jack ;
Warwick, Jane ;
Pinney, Elizabeth ;
Duffy, Stephen W. ;
Cawthorn, Simon ;
Howell, Anthony ;
Forbes, John F. ;
Warren, Ruth M. L. .
JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2011, 103 (09) :744-752
[6]   Mammographic density measurements are not affected by mammography system [J].
Damases, Christine N. ;
Brennan, Patrick C. ;
McEntee, Mark F. .
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL IMAGING, 2015, 2 (01)
[7]   Digital mammographic density and breast cancer risk: a case-control study of six alternative density assessment methods [J].
Eng, Amanda ;
Gallant, Zoe ;
Shepherd, John ;
McCormack, Valerie ;
Li, Jingmei ;
Dowsett, Mitch ;
Vinnicombe, Sarah ;
Allen, Steve ;
dos-Santos-Silva, Isabel .
BREAST CANCER RESEARCH, 2014, 16 (05)
[8]   Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: Sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012 [J].
Ferlay, Jacques ;
Soerjomataram, Isabelle ;
Dikshit, Rajesh ;
Eser, Sultan ;
Mathers, Colin ;
Rebelo, Marise ;
Parkin, Donald Maxwell ;
Forman, David ;
Bray, Freddie .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2015, 136 (05) :E359-E386
[9]  
Garmendia ML, 2014, ALARMING WEIGHT GAIN
[10]   Quantitative assessment of percent breast density: Analog versus digital acquisition [J].
Harvey, JA .
TECHNOLOGY IN CANCER RESEARCH & TREATMENT, 2004, 3 (06) :611-616