Literature DB >> 16710798

A multisite telemammography system for remote management of screening mammography: an assessment of technical, operational, and clinical issues.

Joseph K Leader1, Christiane M Hakim, Marie A Ganott, Denise M Chough, Luisa P Wallace, Ronald J Clearfield, Ronald L Perrin, John M Drescher, Glenn S Maitz, Jules H Sumkin, David Gur.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This paper describes a high-quality, multisite telemammography system to enable "almost real-time" remote patient management while the patient remains in the clinic. One goal is to reduce the number of women who would physically need to return to the clinic for additional imaging procedures (termed "recall") to supplement "routine" imaging of screening mammography.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Mammography films from current and prior (when available) examinations are digitized at three remote sites and transmitted along with other pertinent information across low-level communication systems to the central site. Images are automatically cropped, wavelet compressed, and encrypted prior to transmission to the central site. At the central site, radiologists review and rate examinations on a high-resolution workstation that displays the images, computer-assisted detection results, and the technologist's communication. Intersite communication is provided instantly via a messaging "chat" window.
RESULTS: The technologists recommended additional procedures at 2.7 times the actual clinical recall rate for the same cases. Using the telemammography system during a series of "off-line" clinically simulated studies, radiologists recommended additional procedures at 1.3 times the actual clinical recall rate. Percent agreement and kappa between the study and actual clinical interpretations were 66.1% and 0.315, respectively. For every physical recall potentially avoided using the telemammography system, approximately one presumed "unnecessary" imaging procedure was recommended.
CONCLUSION: Remote patient management can reduce the number of women recalled by as much as 50% without performing an unreasonable number of presumed "unnecessary" procedures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16710798      PMCID: PMC3045147          DOI: 10.1007/s10278-006-0585-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Digit Imaging        ISSN: 0897-1889            Impact factor:   4.056


  21 in total

1.  Prescreening mammography by technologists: a preliminary assessment.

Authors:  Jules H Sumkin; Herta M Klaman; Marianne Graham; Theresa Ruskauff; Rose C Gennari; Jill L King; Amy H Klym; Marie A Ganott; David Gur
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Evaluating organized breast cancer screening implementation: the prevention of late-stage disease?

Authors:  Stephen H Taplin; Laura Ichikawa; Diana S M Buist; Deborah Seger; Emily White
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 4.254

3.  Impact of same-day screening mammography availability: results of a controlled clinical trial.

Authors:  N C Dolan; M M McDermott; M Morrow; L Venta; G J Martin
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1999-02-22

4.  Digital mammography, computer-aided diagnosis, and telemammography.

Authors:  S A Feig; M J Yaffe
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 2.303

5.  Wavelet compression and segmentation of digital mammograms.

Authors:  B J Lucier; M Kallergi; W Qian; R A DeVore; R A Clark; E B Saff; L P Clarke
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 4.056

6.  Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations.

Authors:  J G Elmore; M B Barton; V M Moceri; S Polk; P J Arena; S W Fletcher
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1998-04-16       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program: report on the first 4 years of mammography provided to medically underserved women.

Authors:  D S May; N C Lee; M R Nadel; R M Henson; D S Miller
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Efficacy of breast cancer screening in the community according to risk level.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Lisa M Reisch; Mary B Barton; William E Barlow; Sharon Rolnick; Emily L Harris; Lisa J Herrinton; Ann M Geiger; R Kevin Beverly; Gene Hart; Onchee Yu; Sarah M Greene; Noel S Weiss; Suzanne W Fletcher
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2005-07-20       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms.

Authors:  J G Elmore; C K Wells; C H Lee; D H Howard; A R Feinstein
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1994-12-01       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  The Canadian National Breast Screening Study-1: breast cancer mortality after 11 to 16 years of follow-up. A randomized screening trial of mammography in women age 40 to 49 years.

Authors:  Anthony B Miller; Teresa To; Cornelia J Baines; Claus Wall
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-09-03       Impact factor: 25.391

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  The Empirical Foundations of Teleradiology and Related Applications: A Review of the Evidence.

Authors:  Rashid L Bashshur; Elizabeth A Krupinski; James H Thrall; Noura Bashshur
Journal:  Telemed J E Health       Date:  2016-09-01       Impact factor: 3.536

2.  The influence of mammographic technologists on radiologists' ability to interpret screening mammograms in community practice.

Authors:  Louise M Henderson; Thad Benefield; Mary W Marsh; Bruce F Schroeder; Danielle D Durham; Bonnie C Yankaskas; J Michael Bowling
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2014-11-27       Impact factor: 3.173

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.