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

Celine M Vachon, Erin E E Fowler, Gail Tiffenberg, Christopher G. Scott, V. Shane Pankratz, Thomas A. Sellers, John J. Heine

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

26 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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 (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.Results: Percent 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).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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numberR1
JournalBreast Cancer Research
Volume15
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 4 2013

Fingerprint

Mammography
Breast Neoplasms
Area Under Curve
Odds Ratio
ROC Curve
Case-Control Studies
Body Mass Index
Logistic Models
History
Hormones
Confidence Intervals

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cancer Research
  • Oncology
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Vachon, C. M., Fowler, E. E. E., Tiffenberg, G., Scott, C. G., Pankratz, V. S., Sellers, T. A., & Heine, J. J. (2013). Comparison of percent density from raw and processed full-field digital mammography data. Breast Cancer Research, 15(1), [R1]. https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr3372

Comparison of percent density from raw and processed full-field digital mammography data. / Vachon, Celine M; Fowler, Erin E E; Tiffenberg, Gail; Scott, Christopher G.; Pankratz, V. Shane; Sellers, Thomas A.; Heine, John J.

In: Breast Cancer Research, Vol. 15, No. 1, R1, 04.01.2013.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Vachon, CM, Fowler, EEE, Tiffenberg, G, Scott, CG, Pankratz, VS, Sellers, TA & Heine, JJ 2013, 'Comparison of percent density from raw and processed full-field digital mammography data', Breast Cancer Research, vol. 15, no. 1, R1. https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr3372
Vachon, Celine M ; Fowler, Erin E E ; 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. In: Breast Cancer Research. 2013 ; Vol. 15, No. 1.
@article{9c9dba7b8c5a4033823c9eff2d4590ea,
title = "Comparison of percent density from raw and processed full-field digital mammography data",
abstract = "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 (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.Results: Percent 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).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.",
author = "Vachon, {Celine M} and Fowler, {Erin E E} and Gail Tiffenberg and Scott, {Christopher G.} and Pankratz, {V. Shane} and Sellers, {Thomas A.} and Heine, {John J.}",
year = "2013",
month = "1",
day = "4",
doi = "10.1186/bcr3372",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "15",
journal = "Breast Cancer Research",
issn = "1465-5411",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of percent density from raw and processed full-field digital mammography data

AU - Vachon, Celine M

AU - Fowler, Erin E E

AU - Tiffenberg, Gail

AU - Scott, Christopher G.

AU - Pankratz, V. Shane

AU - Sellers, Thomas A.

AU - Heine, John J.

PY - 2013/1/4

Y1 - 2013/1/4

N2 - 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 (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.Results: Percent 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).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.

AB - 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 (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.Results: Percent 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).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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84871736369&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84871736369&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/bcr3372

DO - 10.1186/bcr3372

M3 - Article

C2 - 23289950

AN - SCOPUS:84871736369

VL - 15

JO - Breast Cancer Research

JF - Breast Cancer Research

SN - 1465-5411

IS - 1

M1 - R1

ER -