Aydan Arslan1, Gökhan Ertaş2, Erkin Arıbal1. 1. Department of Radiology, Acıbadem Mehmet Ali Aydınlar University School of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey. 2. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Yeditepe University School of Engineering, İstanbul, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the automated breast ultrasound system (ABUS) reading time of breast radiologist to a radiology resident independent of the clinical outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred women who underwent screening ABUS between July and August 2017 were reviewed retrospectively. Each study was examined sequentially by a breast radiologist who has more than 20 years of experience in breast radiology and third year resident who has 6 months of experience in breast radiology. Data were analyzed with Spearman' correlation, Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test and Kruskal-Wallis Test and was recorded. RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 42.02±11.423 years (age range16-66). The average time for senior radiologist was 223.36±84.334 seconds (min 118 max 500 seconds). The average time for junior radiologist was 269.48±82.895 seconds (min 150 max 628 seconds). There was a significant difference between the mean time of two radiologists (p=0.00001). There was a significant difference regarding the decrease in the reading time throughout study with the increase of number of cases read by the breast radiologist (p<0.05); but not with the resident radiologist (p=0.687). There was a correlation between BI-RADS category and reading time for both the breast radiologist and the resident (p=0.002, p=0.00043 respectively) indicating that patients who had findings caused longer reading times. CONCLUSION: ABUS reading time may differ according to the experience of the user, however the times of an experienced and non-experienced user is comparable.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the automated breast ultrasound system (ABUS) reading time of breast radiologist to a radiology resident independent of the clinical outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred women who underwent screening ABUS between July and August 2017 were reviewed retrospectively. Each study was examined sequentially by a breast radiologist who has more than 20 years of experience in breast radiology and third year resident who has 6 months of experience in breast radiology. Data were analyzed with Spearman' correlation, Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test and Kruskal-Wallis Test and was recorded. RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 42.02±11.423 years (age range16-66). The average time for senior radiologist was 223.36±84.334 seconds (min 118 max 500 seconds). The average time for junior radiologist was 269.48±82.895 seconds (min 150 max 628 seconds). There was a significant difference between the mean time of two radiologists (p=0.00001). There was a significant difference regarding the decrease in the reading time throughout study with the increase of number of cases read by the breast radiologist (p<0.05); but not with the resident radiologist (p=0.687). There was a correlation between BI-RADS category and reading time for both the breast radiologist and the resident (p=0.002, p=0.00043 respectively) indicating that patients who had findings caused longer reading times. CONCLUSION: ABUS reading time may differ according to the experience of the user, however the times of an experienced and non-experienced user is comparable.
Entities:
Keywords:
Automated breast ultrasound; average time of ABUS; breast cancer; breast ultrasonography; interpretation time of ABUS
Authors: John R Scheel; Janie M Lee; Brian L Sprague; Christoph I Lee; Constance D Lehman Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-06-21 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: V G Maturo; N R Zusmer; A J Gilson; W M Smoak; W R Janowitz; B E Bear; J Goddard; D E Dick Journal: Radiology Date: 1980-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Wendie A Berg; Jeffrey D Blume; Jean B Cormack; Ellen B Mendelson; Daniel Lehrer; Marcela Böhm-Vélez; Etta D Pisano; Roberta A Jong; W Phil Evans; Marilyn J Morton; Mary C Mahoney; Linda Hovanessian Larsen; Richard G Barr; Dione M Farria; Helga S Marques; Karan Boparai Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-05-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: L Tabár; C J Fagerberg; A Gad; L Baldetorp; L H Holmberg; O Gröntoft; U Ljungquist; B Lundström; J C Månson; G Eklund Journal: Lancet Date: 1985-04-13 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Maryellen L Giger; Marc F Inciardi; Alexandra Edwards; John Papaioannou; Karen Drukker; Yulei Jiang; Rachel Brem; Jeremy Bancroft Brown Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2016-04-04 Impact factor: 3.959