Cargando…

Comparison of percent density from raw and processed full-field digital mammography data

INTRODUCTION: Mammographic density has been established as a strong risk factor for breast cancer, primarily using digitized film mammograms. Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) is replacing film mammography, has different properties than film, and provides both raw and processed clinical display...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vachon, Celine M, Fowler, Erin EE, Tiffenberg, Gail, Scott, Christopher G, Pankratz, V Shane, Sellers, Thomas A, Heine, John J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3672765/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23289950
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/bcr3372
_version_ 1782272171425398784
author Vachon, Celine M
Fowler, Erin EE
Tiffenberg, Gail
Scott, Christopher G
Pankratz, V Shane
Sellers, Thomas A
Heine, John J
author_facet Vachon, Celine M
Fowler, Erin EE
Tiffenberg, Gail
Scott, Christopher G
Pankratz, V Shane
Sellers, Thomas A
Heine, John J
author_sort Vachon, Celine M
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Mammographic density has been established as a strong risk factor for breast cancer, primarily using digitized film mammograms. Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) is replacing film mammography, has different properties than film, and provides both raw and processed clinical display representation images. We evaluated and compared FFDM raw and processed breast density measures and their associations with breast cancer. METHODS: A case-control study of 180 cases and 180 controls matched by age, postmenopausal hormone use, and screening history was conducted. Mammograms were acquired from a General Electric Senographe 2000D FFDM unit. Percent density (PD) was assessed for each FFDM representation using the operator-assisted Cumulus method. Reproducibility within image type (n = 80) was assessed using Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (r(c)). Correlation of PD between image representations (n = 360) was evaluated using Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) on the continuous measures and the weighted kappa statistic (κ) for quartiles. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) for the PD and breast cancer associations for both image representations with 95% confidence intervals. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to assess the discriminatory accuracy. RESULTS: Percent density from the two representations provided similar intra-reader reproducibility (r(c)= 0.92 for raw and r(c)= 0.87 for processed images) and was correlated (r = 0.82 and κ = 0.64). When controlling for body mass index, the associations of quartiles of PD with breast cancer and discriminatory accuracy were similar for the raw (OR: 1.0 (ref.), 2.6 (1.2 to 5.4), 3.1 (1.4 to 6.8), 4.7 (2.1 to 10.6); AUC = 0.63) and processed representations (OR: 1.0 (ref.), 2.2 (1.1 to 4.1), 2.2 (1.1 to 4.4), 3.1 (1.5 to 6.6); AUC = 0.64). CONCLUSIONS: Percent density measured with an operator-assisted method from raw and processed FFDM images is reproducible and correlated. Both percent density measures provide similar associations with breast cancer.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3672765
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-36727652013-06-06 Comparison of percent density from raw and processed full-field digital mammography data Vachon, Celine M Fowler, Erin EE Tiffenberg, Gail Scott, Christopher G Pankratz, V Shane Sellers, Thomas A Heine, John J Breast Cancer Res Research Article INTRODUCTION: Mammographic density has been established as a strong risk factor for breast cancer, primarily using digitized film mammograms. Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) is replacing film mammography, has different properties than film, and provides both raw and processed clinical display representation images. We evaluated and compared FFDM raw and processed breast density measures and their associations with breast cancer. METHODS: A case-control study of 180 cases and 180 controls matched by age, postmenopausal hormone use, and screening history was conducted. Mammograms were acquired from a General Electric Senographe 2000D FFDM unit. Percent density (PD) was assessed for each FFDM representation using the operator-assisted Cumulus method. Reproducibility within image type (n = 80) was assessed using Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (r(c)). Correlation of PD between image representations (n = 360) was evaluated using Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) on the continuous measures and the weighted kappa statistic (κ) for quartiles. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) for the PD and breast cancer associations for both image representations with 95% confidence intervals. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to assess the discriminatory accuracy. RESULTS: Percent density from the two representations provided similar intra-reader reproducibility (r(c)= 0.92 for raw and r(c)= 0.87 for processed images) and was correlated (r = 0.82 and κ = 0.64). When controlling for body mass index, the associations of quartiles of PD with breast cancer and discriminatory accuracy were similar for the raw (OR: 1.0 (ref.), 2.6 (1.2 to 5.4), 3.1 (1.4 to 6.8), 4.7 (2.1 to 10.6); AUC = 0.63) and processed representations (OR: 1.0 (ref.), 2.2 (1.1 to 4.1), 2.2 (1.1 to 4.4), 3.1 (1.5 to 6.6); AUC = 0.64). CONCLUSIONS: Percent density measured with an operator-assisted method from raw and processed FFDM images is reproducible and correlated. Both percent density measures provide similar associations with breast cancer. BioMed Central 2013 2013-01-04 /pmc/articles/PMC3672765/ /pubmed/23289950 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/bcr3372 Text en Copyright © 2013 Vachon et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Vachon, Celine M
Fowler, Erin EE
Tiffenberg, Gail
Scott, Christopher G
Pankratz, V Shane
Sellers, Thomas A
Heine, John J
Comparison of percent density from raw and processed full-field digital mammography data
title Comparison of percent density from raw and processed full-field digital mammography data
title_full Comparison of percent density from raw and processed full-field digital mammography data
title_fullStr Comparison of percent density from raw and processed full-field digital mammography data
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of percent density from raw and processed full-field digital mammography data
title_short Comparison of percent density from raw and processed full-field digital mammography data
title_sort comparison of percent density from raw and processed full-field digital mammography data
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3672765/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23289950
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/bcr3372
work_keys_str_mv AT vachoncelinem comparisonofpercentdensityfromrawandprocessedfullfielddigitalmammographydata
AT fowlererinee comparisonofpercentdensityfromrawandprocessedfullfielddigitalmammographydata
AT tiffenberggail comparisonofpercentdensityfromrawandprocessedfullfielddigitalmammographydata
AT scottchristopherg comparisonofpercentdensityfromrawandprocessedfullfielddigitalmammographydata
AT pankratzvshane comparisonofpercentdensityfromrawandprocessedfullfielddigitalmammographydata
AT sellersthomasa comparisonofpercentdensityfromrawandprocessedfullfielddigitalmammographydata
AT heinejohnj comparisonofpercentdensityfromrawandprocessedfullfielddigitalmammographydata