Literature DB >> 15560719

Quantitative assessment of percent breast density: analog versus digital acquisition.

Jennifer A Harvey1.   

Abstract

Breast density is a moderate risk factor for breast cancer based on quantitative measurement of percent breast density from film-screen mammograms. In this study, percent breast density was determined using computer-assisted interactive thresholding software from sixty consecutive mammograms of women undergoing digital screening mammography with a prior film-screen mammogram obtained within the last two years. Observations were made regarding discrepancies in density readings. Percent breast density was significantly lower for digital mammograms (mean 32.2%) compared to analog mammograms (mean 40.3%) (p<0.0001). This was not significant for women with less than 20% breast density (range +0.3 to -2.7%), but larger differences were seen with increasing density (12.5-14.9% lower for >50% density). Differences in density readings between analog and digital mammography were largely observed to be due to better recognition of the skin line on digital mammograms resulting in inclusion of more subcutaneous fat. Difficulties with appropriate recognition of subcutaneous breast tissue and fatty tissue near the chest wall were present for both analog and digital mammography. In conclusion, percent breast density is significantly lower when the mammogram is acquired in digital format compared to film-screen, largely due to better recognition of the skin line with resultant inclusion of more subcutaneous fat. Breast cancer risk predictions based on computerized assessment of breast density may be underestimated when applied to digital mammography.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15560719     DOI: 10.1177/153303460400300611

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 1533-0338


  10 in total

1.  Analysis of parenchymal texture with digital breast tomosynthesis: comparison with digital mammography and implications for cancer risk assessment.

Authors:  Despina Kontos; Lynda C Ikejimba; Predrag R Bakic; Andrea B Troxel; Emily F Conant; Andrew D A Maidment
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-07-19       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 2.  A review of the influence of mammographic density on breast cancer clinical and pathological phenotype.

Authors:  Michael S Shawky; Cecilia W Huo; Kara Britt; Erik W Thompson; Michael A Henderson; Andrew Redfern
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2019-06-08       Impact factor: 4.872

3.  Reproducibility of BI-RADS breast density measures among community radiologists: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Mary C Spayne; Charlotte C Gard; Joan Skelly; Diana L Miglioretti; Pamela M Vacek; Berta M Geller
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2012-05-21       Impact factor: 2.431

4.  Reported mammographic density: film-screen versus digital acquisition.

Authors:  Jennifer A Harvey; Charlotte C Gard; Diana L Miglioretti; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Berta A Geller; Tracy L Onega
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-12-18       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Diagnostic imaging and biopsy pathways following abnormal screen-film and digital screening mammography.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Weiwei Zhu; Ruslan Horblyuk; Leah Karliner; Brian L Sprague; Louise Henderson; David Lee; Tracy Onega; Diana S M Buist; Alison Sweet
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2013-03-08       Impact factor: 4.872

6.  Reader variability in breast density estimation from full-field digital mammograms: the effect of image postprocessing on relative and absolute measures.

Authors:  Brad M Keller; Diane L Nathan; Sara C Gavenonis; Jinbo Chen; Emily F Conant; Despina Kontos
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2013-03-05       Impact factor: 3.173

7.  Effects of digital mammography uptake on downstream breast-related care among older women.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Weiwei Zhu; Tracy L Onega; Paul Fishman; Louise M Henderson; Anna N A Tosteson; Diana S M Buist
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 2.983

8.  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
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2016-12-19       Impact factor: 6.466

9.  Validation of DM-Scan, a computer-assisted tool to assess mammographic density in full-field digital mammograms.

Authors:  Marina Pollán; Rafael Llobet; Josefa Miranda-García; Joaquín Antón; María Casals; Inmaculada Martínez; Carmen Palop; Francisco Ruiz-Perales; Carmen Sánchez-Contador; Carmen Vidal; Beatriz Pérez-Gómez; Dolores Salas-Trejo
Journal:  Springerplus       Date:  2013-05-24

10.  Reliability of the percent density in digital mammography with a semi-automated thresholding method.

Authors:  Guiyun Sohn; Jong Won Lee; Sung Won Park; Jihoon Park; Jiyoung Woo; Hwa Jung Kim; Hee Jung Shin; Hak Hee Kim; Kyung Hae Jung; Joohon Sung; Seung Wook Lee; Byung Ho Son; Sei-Hyun Ahn
Journal:  J Breast Cancer       Date:  2014-06-27       Impact factor: 3.588

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.