OBJECTIVE: As the use of full-field digital screening mammography grows rapidly, this study was conducted to determine the time required to interpret digital soft-copy (filmless) mammography compared with conventional film-screen screening mammography and to evaluate radiologists' use of ancillary diagnostic aids when interpreting digital mammography (DM) and conventional film-screen mammography (FSM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: An 18-question survey was sent to 1,703 members of the Society of Breast Imaging, whose e-mail addresses were provided by the society. After subtracting those from whom out-of-office e-mail responses were received and three who wrote back to exclude themselves, there were 1,659 potential participants. Data from the respondents were collected and analyzed by tabulation and cross-tabulation. RESULTS: In total, 396 members of the Society of Breast Imaging completed and returned surveys, for a 23.9% response rate. Of the respondents, 49.0% said that they had access to and interpreted DM. Their estimated average time to read a single digital mammographic study was 2.6 minutes, compared with 2.0 minutes for reading a single film-screen mammographic study. Therefore, the perceived time difference was 0.6 minutes. Magnification was the main ancillary diagnostic aid used in interpreting both DM and FSM: 74.2% of respondents used computer-based magnification at least half the time in interpreting DM, and 90.9% used optical magnification at least half the time in interpreting FSM. Optical magnification was also used by 28.5% of respondents at least half the time in interpreting DM. The respondents also used computer-aided detection frequently: 91.0% and 76.3% of those who had computer-aided detection available said that they used it at least 75% of the time in interpreting DM and FSM, respectively. CONCLUSION: Digital mammography takes longer to interpret than FSM. Radiologists use various ancillary diagnostic aids, but magnification and computer-aided detection are the two most commonly used aids.
OBJECTIVE: As the use of full-field digital screening mammography grows rapidly, this study was conducted to determine the time required to interpret digital soft-copy (filmless) mammography compared with conventional film-screen screening mammography and to evaluate radiologists' use of ancillary diagnostic aids when interpreting digital mammography (DM) and conventional film-screen mammography (FSM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: An 18-question survey was sent to 1,703 members of the Society of Breast Imaging, whose e-mail addresses were provided by the society. After subtracting those from whom out-of-office e-mail responses were received and three who wrote back to exclude themselves, there were 1,659 potential participants. Data from the respondents were collected and analyzed by tabulation and cross-tabulation. RESULTS: In total, 396 members of the Society of Breast Imaging completed and returned surveys, for a 23.9% response rate. Of the respondents, 49.0% said that they had access to and interpreted DM. Their estimated average time to read a single digital mammographic study was 2.6 minutes, compared with 2.0 minutes for reading a single film-screen mammographic study. Therefore, the perceived time difference was 0.6 minutes. Magnification was the main ancillary diagnostic aid used in interpreting both DM and FSM: 74.2% of respondents used computer-based magnification at least half the time in interpreting DM, and 90.9% used optical magnification at least half the time in interpreting FSM. Optical magnification was also used by 28.5% of respondents at least half the time in interpreting DM. The respondents also used computer-aided detection frequently: 91.0% and 76.3% of those who had computer-aided detection available said that they used it at least 75% of the time in interpreting DM and FSM, respectively. CONCLUSION: Digital mammography takes longer to interpret than FSM. Radiologists use various ancillary diagnostic aids, but magnification and computer-aided detection are the two most commonly used aids.
Authors: Sara L Jackson; Linn Abraham; Diana L Miglioretti; Diana S M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Tracy Onega; Patricia A Carney; Edward A Sickles; Joann G Elmore Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 3.959