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

IF 6.1 1区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
Anya Burton, Graham Byrnes, Jennifer Stone, Rulla M Tamimi, John Heine, Celine Vachon, Vahit Ozmen, Ana Pereira, Maria Luisa Garmendia, Christopher Scott, John H Hipwell, Caroline Dickens, Joachim Schüz, Mustafa Erkin Aribal, Kimberly Bertrand, Ava Kwong, Graham G Giles, John Hopper, Beatriz Pérez Gómez, Marina Pollán, Soo-Hwang Teo, Shivaani Mariapun, Nur Aishah Mohd Taib, Martín Lajous, Ruy Lopez-Riduara, Megan Rice, Isabelle Romieu, Anath Arzee Flugelman, Giske Ursin, Samera Qureshi, Huiyan Ma, Eunjung Lee, Reza Sirous, Mehri Sirous, Jong Won Lee, Jisun Kim, Dorria Salem, Rasha Kamal, Mikael Hartman, Hui Miao, Kee-Seng Chia, Chisato Nagata, Sudhir Vinayak, Rose Ndumia, Carla H van Gils, Johanna O P Wanders, Beata Peplonska, Agnieszka Bukowska, Steve Allen, Sarah Vinnicombe, Sue Moss, Anna M Chiarelli, Linda Linton, Gertraud Maskarinec, Martin J Yaffe, Norman F Boyd, Isabel Dos-Santos-Silva, Valerie A McCormack
{"title":"Mammographic density assessed on paired raw and processed digital images and on paired screen-film and digital images across three mammography systems.","authors":"Anya Burton, Graham Byrnes, Jennifer Stone, Rulla M Tamimi, John Heine, Celine Vachon, Vahit Ozmen, Ana Pereira, Maria Luisa Garmendia, Christopher Scott, John H Hipwell, Caroline Dickens, Joachim Schüz, Mustafa Erkin Aribal, Kimberly Bertrand, Ava Kwong, Graham G Giles, John Hopper, Beatriz Pérez Gómez, Marina Pollán, Soo-Hwang Teo, Shivaani Mariapun, Nur Aishah Mohd Taib, Martín Lajous, Ruy Lopez-Riduara, Megan Rice, Isabelle Romieu, Anath Arzee Flugelman, Giske Ursin, Samera Qureshi, Huiyan Ma, Eunjung Lee, Reza Sirous, Mehri Sirous, Jong Won Lee, Jisun Kim, Dorria Salem, Rasha Kamal, Mikael Hartman, Hui Miao, Kee-Seng Chia, Chisato Nagata, Sudhir Vinayak, Rose Ndumia, Carla H van Gils, Johanna O P Wanders, Beata Peplonska, Agnieszka Bukowska, Steve Allen, Sarah Vinnicombe, Sue Moss, Anna M Chiarelli, Linda Linton, Gertraud Maskarinec, Martin J Yaffe, Norman F Boyd, Isabel Dos-Santos-Silva, Valerie A McCormack","doi":"10.1186/s13058-016-0787-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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<sup>2</sup> 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":9222,"journal":{"name":"Breast Cancer Research","volume":"18 1","pages":"130"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5168805/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Breast Cancer Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-016-0787-0","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

对三种乳腺 X 射线摄影系统的成对原始图像和处理过的数字图像,以及成对屏幕胶片图像和数字图像进行乳腺密度评估。
背景:在研究、临床和筛查应用中,需要对女性间和女性内部的乳腺X线照相密度(MD)进行比较;然而,MD测量受乳腺X线照相模式(屏幕胶片/数字)和数字图像格式(原始/处理)的影响。我们的目的是研究在这些图像类型上评估 MD 的差异:我们从 Hologic 和通用电气(GE)的直接数字系统以及富士计算机放射成像(CR)系统中获得了 1294 对以原始和处理格式保存的图像,并从连续筛查中获得了 128 对屏幕胶片图像和处理过的 CR 数字图像。四名读片员进行基于积云的 MD 测量(n = 3441),每对图像由同一读片员读取。对MD平方根百分比的多层次模型进行拟合,并对女性进行随机截距,以估计处理后与原始MD的差异:结果:与原始图像相比,处理后图像的乳房面积没有差异,但由于致密区域更大,MD 百分比更高(中位数分别为 28.5 和 25.4 cm2,平均√致密区域差异为 0.44 cm (95% CI: 0.36, 0.52))。对于直接数字系统(Hologic 0.50 cm (95% CI: 0.39, 0.61),GE 0.56 cm (95% CI: 0.42, 0.69))而言,√致密面积差异显著,但对于富士 CR(0.06 cm (95% CI: -0.10, 0.23))而言,√致密面积差异并不显著。此外,在每种系统中,特定读者的差异在程度和方向上都有所不同(p 结论:在富士 CR 系统中,MD 稍高,而在富士 CR 系统中,MD 则稍低:在经过处理的直接数字乳腺 X 光照片上测量的 MD 略高于原始数字乳腺 X 光照片。对这些图像格式的 MD 进行比较时,最好能控制这种非恒定性和读者特异性差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Breast Cancer Research
Breast Cancer Research 医学-肿瘤学
自引率
0.00%
发文量
76
期刊介绍: Breast Cancer Research is an international, peer-reviewed online journal, publishing original research, reviews, editorials and reports. Open access research articles of exceptional interest are published in all areas of biology and medicine relevant to breast cancer, including normal mammary gland biology, with special emphasis on the genetic, biochemical, and cellular basis of breast cancer. In addition to basic research, the journal publishes preclinical, translational and clinical studies with a biological basis, including Phase I and Phase II trials.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信