P5-08-03: How Reader's Training, Software, and Image Formats Impact Percent Dense Area Measures.

Abstract

Abstract BACKGROUND: Mammographic percent dense area, the percent ratio of dense to total breast area in a mammogram, is one of the strongest measures of a woman's risk of breast cancer. However, systematic differences have been observed between readers and mammography technologies (film and digital) that could cause clinically inconsistent associations with risk. The purpose of this study was to evaluate inter- and intra-reproducibility of percent dense area between readers and between film and digital technologies. METHODS: One hundred digitized film mammograms were randomly selected with 25 films in each of quartile of percent density and read by two readers at two different sites (Mayo Clinic and UCSF). The readers had extensive experience and were also jointly trained at university of Toronto using Cumulus software. After training, all films were read twice with at least one year between duplicate readings. The Mayo clinic reading used Cumulus while UCSF used custom semiautomatic software to estimate total and dense tissue area. In addition, digitized films and unprocessed full field digital mammograms of the same women were assessed by one reader. The time between the film and digital acquisitions ranged from nine to twenty-four months. Interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated for each comparison. RESULTS: The intra- and inter-observer ICCs, consistency for film images, were 0.96 (UCSF) and 0.97 (Mayo), and 0.96 (UCSF vs. Mayo). We found ICC between film and digital mammograms for percent dense area was 0.88. The digital mammogram had 9% significantly higher total breast area and 5% significantly lower percent density area compared to film. CONCLUSIONS: Similarly trained readers had a high reproducibility regardless of the software used. Our results suggest centralized reader training should enable pooling of film breast density results from different clinics. However, pooling film and digital results would need careful calibration due to lower measured percent dense areas than on film. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-08-03.