SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY: DIAGNOSTIC EFFICACY-ISSUES AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE 2020S

Does the availability of prior mammograms improve radiologists' observer performance?-a scoping review

Objective

The objective of this review was to examine the impact of previous mammogram availability on radiologists' performance from screening populations and experimental studies.

Materials and Methods

A search of the literature was conducted using five databases: MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and CINAHL as well as Google and reference lists of articles. Keywords were combined with "AND" or "OR" or "WITH" and included "prior mammograms, diagnostic performance, initial images, diagnostic efficacy, subsequent images, previous imaging, and radiologist's performance". Studies that assessed the impact of previous mammogram availability on radiologists' performance were reviewed. The Standard for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy guidelines was used to critically appraise individual sources of evidence.

Results

A total of 15 articles were reviewed. The sample of mammogram cases used across these studies varied from 36 to 1,208,051. Prior mammograms did not affect sensitivity [with priors: 62-86% (mean = 73.3%); without priors: 69.4-87.4% (mean = 75.8%)] and cancer detection rate, but increased specificity [with priors: 72-96% (mean = 87.5%); without priors: 63-87% (mean = 80.5%)] and reduced false-positive rates [with priors: 3.7 to 36% (mean = 19.9%); without priors 13.3-49% (mean = 31.4%)], recall rates [with priors: 3.8-57% (mean = 26.6%); without priors: [4.9%-67.5% (mean = 37.9%)], and abnormal interpretation rate decreased by 4% with priors. Evidence for the associations between the availability of prior mammograms and positive-predictive value, area under the curve (AUC) from the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) and localisation ROC AUC, and positive-predictive value of recall is limited and unclear.

Conclusion

Availability of prior mammograms reduces recall rates, false-positive rates, abnormal interpretation rates, and increases specificity without affecting sensitivity and cancer detection rate.

A review of screening mammography: The benefits and radiation risks put into perspective

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

In medical imaging a benefit to risk analysis is required when justifying or implementing diagnostic procedures. Screening mammography is no exception and in particular concerns around the use of radiation to help diagnose cancer must be addressed.

METHODS

The Medline database and various established reports on breast screening and radiological protection were utilised to explore this review.

RESULTS/DISCUSSION

The benefit of screening is well argued; the ability to detect and treat breast cancer has led to a 91% 5-year survival rate and 497 deaths prevented from breast cancer amongst 100,000 screened women. Subsequently, screening guidelines by various countries recommend annual, biennial or triennial screening from ages somewhere between 40-74 years. Whilst the literature presents different perspectives on screening younger and older women, the current evidence of benefit for screening women <40 and ≥75 years is currently not strong. The radiation dose and associated risk delivered to each woman for a single examination is dependent upon age, breast density and breast thickness, however the average mean glandular dose is around 2.5-3 mGy, and this would result in 65 induced cancers and 8 deaths per 100,000 women over a screening lifetime from 40-74 years. This results in a ratio of lives saved to deaths from induced cancer of 62:1.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, compared to the potential mortality reduction achievable with screening mammography, the risk is small.