Literature DB >> 24354377

Addition of tomosynthesis to conventional digital mammography: effect on image interpretation time of screening examinations.

Pragya A Dang1, Phoebe E Freer, Kathryn L Humphrey, Elkan F Halpern, Elizabeth A Rafferty.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the effect of implementing a screening tomosynthesis program on real-world clinical performance by quantifying differences between interpretation times for conventional screening mammography and combined tomosynthesis and mammography for multiple participating radiologists with a wide range of experience in a large academic center.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this HIPAA-compliant, institutional review board-approved study, 10 radiologists prospectively read images from screening digital mammography or screening combined tomosynthesis and mammography examinations for 1-hour-long uninterrupted sessions. Images from 3665 examinations (1502 combined and 2163 digital mammography) from July 2012 to January 2013 were interpreted in at least five sessions per radiologist per modality. The number of cases reported during each session was recorded for each reader. The experience level for each radiologist was also correlated to the average number of cases reported per hour. Analysis of variance was used to assess the number of studies interpreted per hour. A linear regression model was used to evaluate correlation between breast imaging experience and time taken to interpret images from both modalities.
RESULTS: The mean number of studies interpreted in hour was 23.8 ± 0.55 (standard deviation) (range, 14.4-40.4) for combined tomosynthesis and mammography and 34.0 ± 0.55 (range, 20.4-54.3) for digital mammography alone. A mean of 10.2 fewer studies were interpreted per hour during combined tomosynthesis and mammography compared with digital mammography sessions (P < .0001). The mean interpretation time was 2.8 minutes ± 0.9 (range, 1.5-4.2 minutes) for combined tomosynthesis and mammography and 1.9 minutes ± 0.6 (range, 1.1-3.0) for digital mammography; interpretation time with combined tomosynthesis and mammography was 0.9 minute longer (47% longer) compared with digital mammography alone (P < .0001). With the increase in years of breast imaging experience, the overall additional time required to read images from combined tomosynthesis and mammography examinations decreased (R(2) = 0.52, P = .03).
CONCLUSION: Addition of tomosynthesis to mammography results in increased time to interpret images from screening examinations compared with time to interpret images from conventional digital mammography alone. © RSNA, 2014.

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24354377     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13130765

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  23 in total

1.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: State of the Art.

Authors:  Srinivasan Vedantham; Andrew Karellas; Gopal R Vijayaraghavan; Daniel B Kopans
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  [Digital breast tomosynthesis].

Authors:  H Preibsch; K C Siegmann-Luz
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 0.635

Review 3.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Concepts and Clinical Practice.

Authors:  Alice Chong; Susan P Weinstein; Elizabeth S McDonald; Emily F Conant
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-05-14       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Decrease in interpretation time for both novice and experienced readers using a concurrent computer-aided detection system for digital breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Eun Young Chae; Hak Hee Kim; Ji-Wook Jeong; Seung-Hoon Chae; Sooyeul Lee; Young-Wook Choi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-12-13       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 5.  Deep learning in breast radiology: current progress and future directions.

Authors:  William C Ou; Dogan Polat; Basak E Dogan
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-01-15       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  The Effect of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Adoption on Facility-Level Breast Cancer Screening Volume.

Authors:  Christoph I Lee; Weiwei Zhu; Tracy L Onega; Jessica Germino; Ellen S O'Meara; Constance D Lehman; Louise M Henderson; Jennifer S Haas; Karla Kerlikowske; Brian L Sprague; Garth H Rauscher; Anna N A Tosteson; Jennifer Alford-Teaster; Karen J Wernli; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2018-09-20       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Screening outcomes following implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis in a general-population screening program.

Authors:  Anne Marie McCarthy; Despina Kontos; Marie Synnestvedt; Kay See Tan; Daniel F Heitjan; Mitchell Schnall; Emily F Conant
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-10-13       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Comparing search patterns in digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography: an eye tracking study.

Authors:  Avi Aizenman; Trafton Drew; Krista A Ehinger; Dianne Georgian-Smith; Jeremy M Wolfe
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2017-10-27

9.  Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: integration of image modalities enhances deep learning-based breast mass classification.

Authors:  Xin Li; Genggeng Qin; Qiang He; Lei Sun; Hui Zeng; Zilong He; Weiguo Chen; Xin Zhen; Linghong Zhou
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-11-05       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 10.  Artificial Intelligence: A Primer for Breast Imaging Radiologists.

Authors:  Manisha Bahl
Journal:  J Breast Imaging       Date:  2020-06-19
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.