The Impact of Prior Mammograms on the Diagnostic Performance of Radiologists in Early Breast Cancer Detection: A Focus on Breast Density, Lesion Features and Vendors Using Wholly Digital Screening Cases

SIMPLE SUMMARY: This study explored the diagnostic efficacy of radiologists when reading screening mammograms in the absence of previous images (NP), and with prior images obtained from the same (SP) and different vendors (DP). There were 612 radiologists reading 9 mammogram test sets (361-normal and 179-cancer) with 245 cases having prior images from the same vendor and 129 from different vendors. Radiologists obtained 12.8% and 10.3% higher sensitivity in NP and DP than SP. The ROC AUC for NP and DP were also significantly higher than SP. The odds ratio of true positive for NP and DP was 1.6 and 1.5, respectively, relative to SP cases. Radiologists were more likely to detect architectural distortion (OR = 3.2) and calcifications (OR = 2.85) in DP than SP. The findings suggest exploring a mixed reading strategy in viewing cases with prior mammograms acquired from the same and different manufacturers to enhance the diagnostic accuracy in the digital era. ABSTRACT: Background: This study aims to investigate the diagnostic efficacy of radiologists when reading screening mammograms in the absence of previous images, and with the presence of prior images from the same and different vendors. Methods: 612 radiologists’ readings across 9 test sets, consisting of 540 screening mammograms (361-normal and 179-cancer) with 245 cases having prior images obtained from same vendor as current images, 129 from a different vendor and 166 cases having no prior images, were retrospectively analysed. True positive (sensitivity), true negative (specificity) and area under ROC curve (AUC) values of radiologists were calculated for three groups of cases (without prior images (NP), with prior images from same vendor (SP), and with prior images from different vendor (DP)). Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio (OR) of true positive, true negative and true cancer localization among case groups with different levels of breast density and lesion characteristics. Results: Radiologists obtained 12.8% and 10.3% higher sensitivity in NP and DP than SP (0.803-and-0.785 vs. 0.712; p < 0.0001). Specificity in NP and DP cases were 4.8% and 2.0% lower than SP cases (0.749 and 0.771 vs. 0.787). The AUC values for NP and DP were significantly higher than SP cases across different levels of breast density (0.814-and-0.820 vs. 0.782; p < 0.0001). The odds ratio (OR) of true positive for NP relative to SP was 1.6 (p < 0.0001) and DP relative to SP was 1.5 (p < 0.0001). Radiologists were more like to detect architectural distortion in DP than SP cases (OR = 3.2; p < 0.0001), whilst the OR for abnormal calcifications was 2.85 (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Cases without previous mammograms or with prior mammograms obtained from different vendors were more likely to benefit radiologists in cancer detection, whilst prior mammograms undertaken from the same vendor were more useful for radiologists in evaluating normal cases.