Results of a Survey on Digital Screening Mammography: Prevalence, Efficiency, and Use of Ancillary Diagnostic Aids

Objective As the use of full-field digital screening mammography grows rapidly, this study was conducted to determine the time required to interpret digital soft-copy (filmless) mammography compared with conventional film-screen screening mammography and to evaluate radiologists’ use of ancillary di...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of the American College of Radiology 2008-04, Vol.5 (4), p.585-592
Hauptverfasser: Haygood, Tamara Miner, PhD, MD, Whitman, Gary J., MD, Atkinson, E. Neely, PhD, Nikolova, Rumiana G., MS, Sandoval, Sheisa Y. Claudio, Dempsey, Peter J., MD
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objective As the use of full-field digital screening mammography grows rapidly, this study was conducted to determine the time required to interpret digital soft-copy (filmless) mammography compared with conventional film-screen screening mammography and to evaluate radiologists’ use of ancillary diagnostic aids when interpreting digital mammography (DM) and conventional film-screen mammography (FSM). Materials and Methods An 18-question survey was sent to 1,703 members of the Society of Breast Imaging, whose e-mail addresses were provided by the society. After subtracting those from whom out-of-office e-mail responses were received and three who wrote back to exclude themselves, there were 1,659 potential participants. Data from the respondents were collected and analyzed by tabulation and cross-tabulation. Results In total, 396 members of the Society of Breast Imaging completed and returned surveys, for a 23.9% response rate. Of the respondents, 49.0% said that they had access to and interpreted DM. Their estimated average time to read a single digital mammographic study was 2.6 minutes, compared with 2.0 minutes for reading a single film-screen mammographic study. Therefore, the perceived time difference was 0.6 minutes. Magnification was the main ancillary diagnostic aid used in interpreting both DM and FSM: 74.2% of respondents used computer-based magnification at least half the time in interpreting DM, and 90.9% used optical magnification at least half the time in interpreting FSM. Optical magnification was also used by 28.5% of respondents at least half the time in interpreting DM. The respondents also used computer-aided detection frequently: 91.0% and 76.3% of those who had computer-aided detection available said that they used it at least 75% of the time in interpreting DM and FSM, respectively. Conclusion Digital mammography takes longer to interpret than FSM. Radiologists use various ancillary diagnostic aids, but magnification and computer-aided detection are the two most commonly used aids.
ISSN:1546-1440
1558-349X
DOI:10.1016/j.jacr.2007.10.019