Yiming Gao1, James S Babb2, Hildegard K Toth2, Linda Moy2, Samantha L Heller2. 1. Department of Radiology, NYU Langone School of Medicine, Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center, 160 East 34th Street, 3rd Floor, New York, NY 10016. Electronic address: Yiming.Gao@nyumc.org. 2. Department of Radiology, NYU Langone School of Medicine, Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center, 160 East 34th Street, 3rd Floor, New York, NY 10016.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate uptake, patterns of use, and perception of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) among practicing breast radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional Review Board exemption was obtained for this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant electronic survey, sent to 7023 breast radiologists identified via the Radiological Society of North America database. Respondents were asked of their geographic location and practice type. DBT users reported length of use, selection criteria, interpretive sequences, recall rate, and reading time. Radiologist satisfaction with DBT as a diagnostic tool was assessed (1-5 scale). RESULTS: There were 1156 (16.5%) responders, 65.8% from the United States and 34.2% from abroad. Of these, 749 (68.6%) use DBT; 22.6% in academia, 56.5% private, and 21% other. Participants are equally likely to report use of DBT if they worked in academics versus in private practice (78.2% [169 of 216] vs 71% [423 of 596]) (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval: 0.87-1.40; P = 1.000). Of nonusers, 43% (147 of 343) plan to adopt DBT. No US regional differences in uptake were observed (P = 1.000). Although 59.3% (416 of 702) of DBT users include synthetic 2D (s2D) for interpretation, only 24.2% (170 of 702) use s2D alone. Majority (66%; 441 of 672) do not perform DBT-guided procedures. Radiologist (76.6%) (544 of 710) satisfaction with DBT as a diagnostic tool is high (score ≥ 4/5). CONCLUSIONS: DBT is being adopted worldwide across all practice types, yet variations in examination indication, patient selection, utilization of s2D images, and access to DBT-guided procedures persist, highlighting the need for consensus and standardization.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate uptake, patterns of use, and perception of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) among practicing breast radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional Review Board exemption was obtained for this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant electronic survey, sent to 7023 breast radiologists identified via the Radiological Society of North America database. Respondents were asked of their geographic location and practice type. DBT users reported length of use, selection criteria, interpretive sequences, recall rate, and reading time. Radiologist satisfaction with DBT as a diagnostic tool was assessed (1-5 scale). RESULTS: There were 1156 (16.5%) responders, 65.8% from the United States and 34.2% from abroad. Of these, 749 (68.6%) use DBT; 22.6% in academia, 56.5% private, and 21% other. Participants are equally likely to report use of DBT if they worked in academics versus in private practice (78.2% [169 of 216] vs 71% [423 of 596]) (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval: 0.87-1.40; P = 1.000). Of nonusers, 43% (147 of 343) plan to adopt DBT. No US regional differences in uptake were observed (P = 1.000). Although 59.3% (416 of 702) of DBT users include synthetic 2D (s2D) for interpretation, only 24.2% (170 of 702) use s2D alone. Majority (66%; 441 of 672) do not perform DBT-guided procedures. Radiologist (76.6%) (544 of 710) satisfaction with DBT as a diagnostic tool is high (score ≥ 4/5). CONCLUSIONS: DBT is being adopted worldwide across all practice types, yet variations in examination indication, patient selection, utilization of s2D images, and access to DBT-guided procedures persist, highlighting the need for consensus and standardization.
Keywords:
3D mammogram; 3D mammogram utilization; DBT use; Digital breast tomosynthesis; academic versus private practice; digital breast tomosynthesis utilization; questionnaire; survey; surveys and questionnaires; synthetic 2D mammogram; synthetic 2D mammogram utilization; synthetic mammogram utilization; tomosynthesis; tomosynthesis utilization; use of synthetic 2D mammogram
Authors: Samantha P Zuckerman; Brian L Sprague; Donald L Weaver; Sally D Herschorn; Emily F Conant Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2019-08-12 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Sarah J Nyante; Mary W Marsh; Thad Benefield; Kathryn Earnhardt; Sheila S Lee; Louise M Henderson Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Samantha P Zuckerman; Brian L Sprague; Donald L Weaver; Sally D Herschorn; Emily F Conant Journal: Radiology Date: 2020-10-13 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Ravi K Samala; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Mark A Helvie; Caleb D Richter; Kenny H Cha Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Martha T Manda-Mapalo; Stephanie G Fine; Sarah Safadi; Ji-Hyun Lee; Ruofei Du; Andrew L Sussman; Shiraz Mishra; Reed G Selwyn; Jennifer L Saline; Wendy L Hine; Ursa A Brown-Glaberman Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2020-09-29 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Connor Puett; Jenny Gao; Andrew Tucker; Christina R Inscoe; Michael Hwang; Cherie M Kuzmiak; Jianping Lu; Otto Zhou; Yueh Z Lee Journal: Biomed Phys Eng Express Date: 2019-07-25