Importance of comparison of current and prior mammograms in breast cancer screening.

PURPOSE: To retrospectively determine the influence of comparing current mammograms with prior mammograms on breast cancer detection in screening and to investigate a protocol in which prior mammograms are viewed only when necessary. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval was not required. Participants gave written informed consent. Twelve experienced screening radiologists read 160 soft-copy screening mammograms twice, once with and once without prior mammograms. Eighty mammograms were obtained in women in whom breast cancer was diagnosed later; the other 80 mammograms had been reported as normal or benign. All cancers were visible in retrospect. Readers located potential abnormalities, estimated likelihood of malignancy for each finding, and indicated whether prior mammograms were considered necessary. The effect of prior mammograms on detection was determined by computing the mean lesion localized fraction in a range of low fractions of nonlesion locations corresponding to operating points in screening. Scores for both reading sessions were combined to assess the effect of making prior mammograms available only when requested. Data were analyzed by comparing the number of localized lesions between the two reading conditions with a paired two-tailed Student t test and applying a linear mixed model to test differences in average mean lesion localized fraction between reading conditions. P values less than .05 indicated statistical significance. RESULTS: Without prior mammograms, significantly more annotations were made. When only positive cases were considered, no difference was observed. Reading performance was significantly better when prior screening mammograms were available. At fixed lesion localized fraction, nonlesion localized fraction was reduced by 44% (P<.001) on average when prior mammograms were read. Performance was also increased for combined reading mode (ie, when prior mammograms were available on request only). However, this increase was smaller than that when prior mammograms were always available. Prior mammograms were requested in 24%-33% of all cases and were requested more often in positive cases. CONCLUSION: Comparison with prior mammograms significantly improves overall performance and can reduce referrals due to nonlesion locations. Limiting the availability of prior mammograms to cases selected by the reader reduces the beneficial effect of prior mammograms.

Effect of soft-copy display supported by CAD on mammography screening performance.

Diagnostic performance and reading speed for conventional mammography film reading is compared to reading digitized mammograms on a dedicated workstation. A series of mammograms judged negative at screening and corresponding priors were collected. Half were diagnosed as cancer at the next screening, or earlier for interval cancers. The others were normal. Original films were read by fifteen experienced screening radiologists. The readers annotated potential abnormalities and estimated their likelihood of malignancy. More than 1 year later, five radiologists reread a subset of 271 cases (88 cancer cases having visible signs in retrospect and 183 normals) on a mammography workstation after film digitization. Markers from a computer-aided detection (CAD) system for microcalcifications were available to the readers. Performance was evaluated by comparison of A(z)-scores based on ROC and multiple-Reader multiple-case (MRMC) analysis, and localized receiver operating characteristic (LROC) analysis for the 271 cases. Reading speed was also determined. No significant difference in diagnostic performance was observed between conventional and soft-copy reading. Average A(z)-scores were 0.83 and 0.84 respectively. Soft-copy reading was only slightly slower than conventional reading. Using a mammography workstation including CAD for detection of microcalcifications, soft-copy reading is possible without loss of quality or efficiency.