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

IntroductionMammographic 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.MethodsA 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 (rc). 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.ResultsPercent density from the two representations provided similar intra-reader reproducibility (rc= 0.92 for raw and rc= 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).ConclusionsPercent 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.

[1]  V. McCormack,et al.  Breast Density and Parenchymal Patterns as Markers of Breast Cancer Risk: A Meta-analysis , 2006, Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention.

[2]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Diagnostic Performance of Digital Versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[3]  Rafael Llobet,et al.  Women’s features and inter-/intra-rater agreement on mammographic density assessment in full-field digital mammograms (DDM-SPAIN) , 2012, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[4]  N. Karssemeijer,et al.  Volumetric Breast Density from Full-Field Digital Mammograms and Its Association with Breast Cancer Risk Factors: A Comparison with a Threshold Method , 2010, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

[5]  N. Boyd,et al.  Mammographic densities and risk of breast cancer among subjects with a family history of this disease. , 1999, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[6]  C D Claussen,et al.  Comparison of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography: image quality and lesion detection. , 2005, The British journal of radiology.

[7]  Anna Chiarelli,et al.  Body Size, Mammographic Density, and Breast Cancer Risk , 2006, Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention.

[8]  N. Boyd,et al.  Breast tissue composition and susceptibility to breast cancer. , 2010, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[9]  M. Yaffe Mammographic density. Measurement of mammographic density , 2008, Breast Cancer Research.

[10]  Mahadevappa Mahesh,et al.  AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: digital mammography: an overview. , 2004, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[11]  Arthur Burgess On the noise variance of a digital mammography system. , 2004, Medical physics.

[12]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[13]  John J Heine,et al.  A quantitative description of the percentage of breast density measurement using full-field digital mammography. , 2011, Academic radiology.

[14]  J. Hanley,et al.  A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. , 1983, Radiology.

[15]  S Suryanarayanan,et al.  Full breast digital mammography with an amorphous silicon-based flat panel detector: physical characteristics of a clinical prototype. , 2000, Medical physics.