Literature DB >> 17185661

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

Antonius A J Roelofs1, Nico Karssemeijer, Nora Wedekind, Christian Beck, Sander van Woudenberg, Peter R Snoeren, Jan H C L Hendriks, Marco Rosselli del Turco, Nils Bjurstam, Hans Junkermann, David Beijerinck, Brigitte Séradour, Carl J G Evertsz.   

Abstract

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. Copyright (c) RSNA, 2007.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17185661     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2421050684

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  20 in total

1.  Should previous mammograms be digitised in the transition to digital mammography?

Authors:  S Taylor-Phillips; M G Wallis; A G Gale
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-03-18       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Characterizing mammography reports for health analytics.

Authors:  Carlos C Rojas; Robert M Patton; Barbara G Beckerman
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2011-06-14       Impact factor: 4.460

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

Authors:  Christiane M Hakim; Victor J Catullo; Denise M Chough; Marie A Ganott; Amy E Kelly; Dilip D Shinde; Jules H Sumkin; Luisa P Wallace; Andriy I Bandos; David Gur
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-03-13       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Synchronized navigation of current and prior studies using image registration improves radiologist's efficiency.

Authors:  Daniel Forsberg; Amit Gupta; Christopher Mills; Brett MacAdam; Beverly Rosipko; Barbara A Bangert; Michael D Coffey; Christos Kosmas; Jeffrey L Sunshine
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2016-11-26       Impact factor: 2.924

5.  Perspective: in pursuit of a learning culture.

Authors:  C Dan Johnson; Nelly Tan
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2021-06-01

6.  Effect of observing change from comparison mammograms on performance of screening mammography in a large community-based population.

Authors:  Bonnie C Yankaskas; Ryan C May; Jeanine Matuszewski; J Michael Bowling; Molly P Jarman; Bruce F Schroeder
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-10-26       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Classifying symmetrical differences and temporal change for the detection of malignant masses in mammography using deep neural networks.

Authors:  Thijs Kooi; Nico Karssemeijer
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2017-10-10

8.  Racial differences in false-positive mammogram rates: results from the ACRIN Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST).

Authors:  Anne Marie McCarthy; Philip Yamartino; Jianing Yang; Mirar Bristol; Emily F Conant; Katrina Armstrong
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 2.983

9.  Impact of and interaction between the availability of prior examinations and DBT on the interpretation of negative and benign mammograms.

Authors:  Christiane M Hakim; Marie I Anello; Cathy S Cohen; Marie A Ganott; Amy H Lu; Ronald L Perrin; Ratan Shah; Marion Lee Spangler; Andriy I Bandos; David Gur
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2013-12-05       Impact factor: 3.173

10.  Improving Screening Mammography Outcomes Through Comparison With Multiple Prior Mammograms.

Authors:  Jessica H Hayward; Kimberly M Ray; Dorota J Wisner; John Kornak; Weiwen Lin; Bonnie N Joe; Edward A Sickles
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2016-07-06       Impact factor: 3.959

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.