RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To compare time to interpretation and diagnostic performance levels during repeat readings of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in a retrospective study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three experienced radiologists twice interpreted 125 selected examinations, 35 with verified cancers and 90 negative for cancer during a period of 22 months using FFDM alone followed by a combined FFDM + DBT mode. Changes in time to "review and rate" these examinations as well as in diagnostic performance levels where assessed. A fixed-effect analysis accounting for cross-correlation due to the review of the same examinations by the same readers was performed. RESULTS: The total (combined) time to review and rate an examination increased on average by 33% between the first and second readings of the same examinations (P < .001). Radiologists reduced their time to review FFDM before making the DBT available for viewing. However, they spent more time reviewing the combined FFDM + DBT mode. The recall rates for examinations depicting cancer remained largely unchanged. Among the groups of examinations with concordant and discordant recall recommendations during the two readings only the group examinations that were "newly recalled" during repeat reading, took significantly longer (P < .01). CONCLUSION: DBT-based breast imaging may ultimately result in a substantial increase in performance; however, without efficiency improvements DBT may take longer to interpret. Addition of "false-positive recalls" was most strongly associated with increase in interpretation time while elimination of "false-positive recalls" did not require longer interpretation time. Copyright 2010 AUR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To compare time to interpretation and diagnostic performance levels during repeat readings of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in a retrospective study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three experienced radiologists twice interpreted 125 selected examinations, 35 with verified cancers and 90 negative for cancer during a period of 22 months using FFDM alone followed by a combined FFDM + DBT mode. Changes in time to "review and rate" these examinations as well as in diagnostic performance levels where assessed. A fixed-effect analysis accounting for cross-correlation due to the review of the same examinations by the same readers was performed. RESULTS: The total (combined) time to review and rate an examination increased on average by 33% between the first and second readings of the same examinations (P < .001). Radiologists reduced their time to review FFDM before making the DBT available for viewing. However, they spent more time reviewing the combined FFDM + DBT mode. The recall rates for examinations depicting cancer remained largely unchanged. Among the groups of examinations with concordant and discordant recall recommendations during the two readings only the group examinations that were "newly recalled" during repeat reading, took significantly longer (P < .01). CONCLUSION: DBT-based breast imaging may ultimately result in a substantial increase in performance; however, without efficiency improvements DBT may take longer to interpret. Addition of "false-positive recalls" was most strongly associated with increase in interpretation time while elimination of "false-positive recalls" did not require longer interpretation time. Copyright 2010 AUR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Ravi K Samala; Heang-Ping Chan; Yao Lu; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Jun Wei; Mark A Helvie Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2014-11-13 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Mitra Noroozian; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Sahand Rahnama-Moghadam; Katherine A Klein; Deborah O Jeffries; Renee W Pinsky; Heang-Ping Chan; Paul L Carson; Mark A Helvie; Marilyn A Roubidoux Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-10-13 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Ji Soo Choi; Boo-Kyung Han; Eun Young Ko; Eun Sook Ko; Soo Yeon Hahn; Jung Hee Shin; Min Jung Kim Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-12-01 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Francesca Galati; Flaminia Marzocca; Erica Bassetti; Maria L Luciani; Sharon Tan; Carlo Catalano; Federica Pediconi Journal: Breast Care (Basel) Date: 2017-08-29 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Margarita L Zuley; Ben Guo; Victor J Catullo; Denise M Chough; Amy E Kelly; Amy H Lu; Grace Y Rathfon; Marion Lee Spangler; Jules H Sumkin; Luisa P Wallace; Andriy I Bandos Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-01-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Per Skaane; Andriy I Bandos; Randi Gullien; Ellen B Eben; Ulrika Ekseth; Unni Haakenaasen; Mina Izadi; Ingvild N Jebsen; Gunnar Jahr; Mona Krager; Solveig Hofvind Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-04-04 Impact factor: 5.315