A comparison of image interpretation times in Full Field Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis

被引:3
作者
Astley, Susan [1 ]
Connor, Sophie
Lim, Yit
Tate, Catriona [1 ]
Entwistle, Helen
Morris, Julie
Whiteside, Sigrid
Sergeant, Jamie [1 ]
Wilson, Mary
Beetles, Ursula
Boggis, Caroline
Gilbert, Fiona
机构
[1] Univ Manchester, Inst Populat Hlth, Ctr Imaging Sci, Manchester M13 9PT, Lancs, England
来源
MEDICAL IMAGING 2013: IMAGE PERCEPTION, OBSERVER PERFORMANCE, AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT | 2013年 / 8673卷
关键词
Digital; Breast; Tomosynthesis; Mammography; Image; Reading; Time; Comparison; SCREEN-FILM MAMMOGRAPHY; CANCER; PERFORMANCE; OBSERVER; PROGRAM;
D O I
10.1117/12.2006039
中图分类号
O43 [光学];
学科分类号
070207 ; 0803 ;
摘要
Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) provides three-dimensional images of the breast that enable radiologists to discern whether densities are due to overlapping structures or lesions. To aid assessment of the cost-effectiveness of DBT for screening, we have compared the time taken to interpret DBT images and the corresponding two-dimensional Full Field Digital Mammography (FFDM) images. Four Consultant Radiologists experienced in reading FFDM images (4 years 8 months to 8 years) with training in DBT interpretation but more limited experience (137-407 cases in the past 6 months) were timed reading between 24 and 32 two view FFDM and DBT cases. The images were of women recalled from screening for further assessment and women under surveillance because of a family history of breast cancer. FFDM images were read before DBT, according to local practice. The median time for readers to interpret FFDM images was 17.0 seconds, with an interquartile range of 12.3-23.6 seconds. For DBT, the median time was 66.0 seconds, and the interquartile range was 51.1-80.5 seconds. The difference was statistically significant (p < 0.001). Reading times were significantly longer in family history clinics (p < 0.01). Although it took approximately four times as long to interpret DBT than FFDM images, the cases were more complex than would be expected for routine screening, and with higher mammographic density. The readers were relatively inexperienced in DBT interpretation and may increase their speed over time. The difference in times between clinics may be due to increased throughput at assessment, or decreased density.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 19 条
[1]   Digital and screen-film mammography: Comparison of image acquisition and interpretation times [J].
Berns, EA ;
Hendrick, RE ;
Solari, M ;
Barke, L ;
Reddy, D ;
Wolfman, J ;
Segal, L ;
DeLeon, P ;
Benjamin, S ;
Willis, L .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2006, 187 (01) :38-41
[2]   Assessing Individual Breast Cancer Risk within the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Program: A New Paradigm for Cancer Prevention [J].
Evans, D. Gareth R. ;
Warwick, Jane ;
Astley, Susan M. ;
Stavrinos, Paula ;
Sahin, Sarah ;
Ingham, Sarah ;
McBurney, Helen ;
Eckersley, Barbara ;
Harvie, Michelle ;
Wilson, Mary ;
Beetles, Ursula ;
Warren, Ruth ;
Hufton, Alan ;
Sergeant, Jamie C. ;
Newman, William G. ;
Buchan, Iain ;
Cuzick, Jack ;
Howell, Anthony .
CANCER PREVENTION RESEARCH, 2012, 5 (07) :943-951
[3]   Full-Field Digital Mammographic Interpretation With Prior Analog Versus Prior Digitized Analog Mammography: Time for Interpretation [J].
Garg, Akshay S. ;
Rapelyea, Jocelyn A. ;
Rechtman, Lauren R. ;
Torrente, Jessica ;
Bittner, Rebecca B. ;
Coffey, Caitrin M. ;
Brem, Rachel F. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2011, 196 (06) :1436-1438
[4]   Digital breast tomosynthesis: A pilot observer study [J].
Good, Walter F. ;
Abrams, Gordon S. ;
Catullo, Victor J. ;
Chough, Denise M. ;
Ganott, Marie A. ;
Hakim, Christiane M. ;
Gur, David .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2008, 190 (04) :865-869
[5]   Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Observer Performance Study [J].
Gur, David ;
Abrams, Gordon S. ;
Chough, Denise M. ;
Ganott, Marie A. ;
Hakim, Christiane M. ;
Perrin, Ronald L. ;
Rathfon, Grace Y. ;
Sumkin, Jules H. ;
Zuley, Margarita L. ;
Bandos, Andriy I. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2009, 193 (02) :586-591
[6]   Why Does It Take Longer to Read Digital Than Film-Screen Screening Mammograms? A Partial Explanation [J].
Haygood, Tamara Miner ;
Wang, Jihong ;
Lane, Deanna ;
Galvan, Eva ;
Atkinson, E. Neely ;
Stephens, Tanya ;
Whitman, Gary J. .
JOURNAL OF DIGITAL IMAGING, 2010, 23 (02) :170-180
[7]  
NHS Breast Screening Programme, 2011, 2011 ANN REV
[8]   Digital Tomosynthesis in breast imaging [J].
Niklason, LT ;
Christian, BT ;
Niklason, LE ;
Kopans, DB ;
Castleberry, DE ;
OpsahlOng, BH ;
Landberg, CE ;
Slanetz, PJ ;
Giardino, AA ;
Moore, R ;
Albagli, D ;
DeJule, MC ;
Fitzgerald, PF ;
Fobare, DF ;
Giambattista, BW ;
Kwasnick, RF ;
Liu, JQ ;
Lubowski, SJ ;
Possin, GE ;
Richotte, JF ;
Wei, CY ;
Wirth, RF .
RADIOLOGY, 1997, 205 (02) :399-406
[9]  
Nishikawa R.M., 2007, P SOC PHOTO-OPT INS, V6510, P1464
[10]  
O'Riordan E, 2000, RADIOLOGY, V217, P200