Effect of the Availability of Prior Full-Field Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Images on the Interpretation of Mammograms.

PURPOSE To assess the effect of and interaction between the availability of prior images and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) images in decisions to recall women during mammogram interpretation. MATERIALS AND METHODS Verbal informed consent was obtained for this HIPAA-compliant institutional review board-approved protocol. Eight radiologists independently interpreted twice deidentified mammograms obtained in 153 women (age range, 37-83 years; mean age, 53.7 years ± 9.3 [standard deviation]) in a mode by reader by case-balanced fully crossed study. Each study consisted of current and prior full-field digital mammography (FFDM) images and DBT images that were acquired in our facility between June 2009 and January 2013. For one reading, sequential ratings were provided by using (a) current FFDM images only, (b) current FFDM and DBT images, and (c) current FFDM, DBT, and prior FFDM images. The other reading consisted of (a) current FFDM images only, (b) current and prior FFDM images, and (c) current FFDM, prior FFDM, and DBT images. Fifty verified cancer cases, 60 negative and benign cases (clinically not recalled), and 43 benign cases (clinically recalled) were included. Recall recommendations and interaction between the effect of prior FFDM and DBT images were assessed by using a generalized linear model accounting for case and reader variability. RESULTS Average recall rates in noncancer cases were significantly reduced with the addition of prior FFDM images by 34% (145 of 421) and 32% (106 of 333) without and with DBT images, respectively (P < .001). However, this recall reduction was achieved at the cost of a corresponding 7% (23 of 345) and 4% (14 of 353) reduction in sensitivity (P = .006). In contrast, availability of DBT images resulted in a smaller reduction in recall rates (false-positive interpretations) of 19% (76 of 409) and 26% (71 of 276) without and with prior FFDM images, respectively (P = .001). Availability of DBT images resulted in 4% (15 of 338) and 8% (25 of 322) increases in sensitivity, respectively (P = .007). The effects of the availability of prior FFDM images or DBT images did not significantly change regardless of the sequence in presentation (P = .81 and P = .47 for specificity and sensitivity, respectively). CONCLUSION The availability of prior FFDM or DBT images is a largely independent contributing factor in reducing recall recommendations during mammographic interpretation.

[1]  E. Halpern,et al.  Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. , 2013, Radiology.

[2]  N Houssami,et al.  Application of breast tomosynthesis in screening: incremental effect on mammography acquisition and reading time. , 2012, The British journal of radiology.

[3]  Emily F Conant,et al.  Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. , 2014, JAMA.

[4]  David Gur,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[5]  Madhavi Raghu,et al.  Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. , 2013, Radiology.

[6]  E Azavedo,et al.  Effect on sensitivity and specificity of mammography screening with or without comparison of old mammograms. , 2000, Acta radiologica.

[7]  Unni Haakenaasen,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): initial experience in a clinical setting , 2012, Acta radiologica.

[8]  A. Holland,et al.  Clinical performance metrics of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis compared with 2D digital mammography for breast cancer screening in community practice. , 2014, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[9]  Nico Karssemeijer,et al.  Importance of comparison of current and prior mammograms in breast cancer screening. , 2007, Radiology.

[10]  Andriy I Bandos,et al.  Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images. , 2014, Radiology.

[11]  David Gur,et al.  Optimal reference mammography: a comparison of mammograms obtained 1 and 2 years before the present examination. , 2003, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[12]  Andriy I. Bandos,et al.  Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. , 2013, Radiology.

[13]  S. Ciatto,et al.  Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. , 2013, The Lancet. Oncology.

[14]  Tor D Tosteson,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[15]  Nico Karssemeijer,et al.  Use of prior mammograms in the classification of benign and malignant masses. , 2005, European journal of radiology.

[16]  Andriy I Bandos,et al.  Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. , 2014, Radiology.

[17]  D. Gur,et al.  Impact of and interaction between the availability of prior examinations and DBT on the interpretation of negative and benign mammograms. , 2014, Academic radiology.