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!
container_end_page 592
container_issue 4
container_start_page 585
container_title Journal of the American College of Radiology
container_volume 5
creator 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
description 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.jacr.2007.10.019
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70427552</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S1546144007006412</els_id><sourcerecordid>70427552</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c324t-d58f5c9898a2f8cac8b92518fbf66ff8d24437b0fc65f009166b5397765b10ef3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU9v1DAQxSMEoqXwBTggnzg1W9uxYwehSqvSP0itQCyVuFmOM14cEmexk5Xy7XHYlZA49DSj0XtPM7_JsrcErwgm5UW7arUJK4qxSIMVJtWz7JRwLvOCVT-eLz0rc8IYPslexdhiTIWQ8mV2QmTBK8bEaRa-QZy6MaLBIo02U9jDjAaPPrmtG3WHNiYAeOe36EH3_bANevdz_oC-BtjrDryBc3RtrTMu9fM50r5BjxGWtLU3rut0mFOW3vohjs6gtWvi6-yF1V2EN8d6lj3eXH-_usvvv9x-vlrf56agbMwbLi03laykplYabWRdUU6krW1ZWisbylghamxNyS3GFSnLmheVECWvCQZbnGXvD7m7MPyeII6qd9FA2snDMEUlMKOCc5qE9CA0YYgxgFW74Pq0uSJYLaRVqxbSaiG9zBLpZHp3TJ_qHpp_liPaJPh4EEC6ce8gqPiXEjQugBlVM7in8y__s5vOeWd09wtmiO0wBZ_oKaIiVVhtll8vr8YC45IRWvwB4mykWw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>70427552</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Results of a Survey on Digital Screening Mammography: Prevalence, Efficiency, and Use of Ancillary Diagnostic Aids</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>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</creator><creatorcontrib>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</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1546-1440</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1558-349X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2007.10.019</identifier><identifier>PMID: 18359447</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Breast Neoplasms - epidemiology ; CAD ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; digital imaging ; digital mammography ; Efficiency ; Female ; Humans ; Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted ; Mammography - methods ; Mammography - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Mass Screening - instrumentation ; Mass Screening - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Observer Variation ; Prevalence ; Radiographic Image Enhancement ; Radiographic Magnification - instrumentation ; Radiographic Magnification - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Radiology ; Reproducibility of Results ; ROC Curve ; Screening mammography ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; United States</subject><ispartof>Journal of the American College of Radiology, 2008-04, Vol.5 (4), p.585-592</ispartof><rights>American College of Radiology</rights><rights>2008 American College of Radiology</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c324t-d58f5c9898a2f8cac8b92518fbf66ff8d24437b0fc65f009166b5397765b10ef3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c324t-d58f5c9898a2f8cac8b92518fbf66ff8d24437b0fc65f009166b5397765b10ef3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2007.10.019$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3541,27915,27916,45986</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18359447$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Haygood, Tamara Miner, PhD, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Whitman, Gary J., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Atkinson, E. Neely, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nikolova, Rumiana G., MS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sandoval, Sheisa Y. Claudio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dempsey, Peter J., MD</creatorcontrib><title>Results of a Survey on Digital Screening Mammography: Prevalence, Efficiency, and Use of Ancillary Diagnostic Aids</title><title>Journal of the American College of Radiology</title><addtitle>J Am Coll Radiol</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - epidemiology</subject><subject>CAD</subject><subject>Cross-Sectional Studies</subject><subject>digital imaging</subject><subject>digital mammography</subject><subject>Efficiency</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted</subject><subject>Mammography - methods</subject><subject>Mammography - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Mass Screening - instrumentation</subject><subject>Mass Screening - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Observer Variation</subject><subject>Prevalence</subject><subject>Radiographic Image Enhancement</subject><subject>Radiographic Magnification - instrumentation</subject><subject>Radiographic Magnification - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>ROC Curve</subject><subject>Screening mammography</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>1546-1440</issn><issn>1558-349X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU9v1DAQxSMEoqXwBTggnzg1W9uxYwehSqvSP0itQCyVuFmOM14cEmexk5Xy7XHYlZA49DSj0XtPM7_JsrcErwgm5UW7arUJK4qxSIMVJtWz7JRwLvOCVT-eLz0rc8IYPslexdhiTIWQ8mV2QmTBK8bEaRa-QZy6MaLBIo02U9jDjAaPPrmtG3WHNiYAeOe36EH3_bANevdz_oC-BtjrDryBc3RtrTMu9fM50r5BjxGWtLU3rut0mFOW3vohjs6gtWvi6-yF1V2EN8d6lj3eXH-_usvvv9x-vlrf56agbMwbLi03laykplYabWRdUU6krW1ZWisbylghamxNyS3GFSnLmheVECWvCQZbnGXvD7m7MPyeII6qd9FA2snDMEUlMKOCc5qE9CA0YYgxgFW74Pq0uSJYLaRVqxbSaiG9zBLpZHp3TJ_qHpp_liPaJPh4EEC6ce8gqPiXEjQugBlVM7in8y__s5vOeWd09wtmiO0wBZ_oKaIiVVhtll8vr8YC45IRWvwB4mykWw</recordid><startdate>200804</startdate><enddate>200804</enddate><creator>Haygood, Tamara Miner, PhD, MD</creator><creator>Whitman, Gary J., MD</creator><creator>Atkinson, E. Neely, PhD</creator><creator>Nikolova, Rumiana G., MS</creator><creator>Sandoval, Sheisa Y. Claudio</creator><creator>Dempsey, Peter J., MD</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200804</creationdate><title>Results of a Survey on Digital Screening Mammography: Prevalence, Efficiency, and Use of Ancillary Diagnostic Aids</title><author>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</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c324t-d58f5c9898a2f8cac8b92518fbf66ff8d24437b0fc65f009166b5397765b10ef3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - epidemiology</topic><topic>CAD</topic><topic>Cross-Sectional Studies</topic><topic>digital imaging</topic><topic>digital mammography</topic><topic>Efficiency</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted</topic><topic>Mammography - methods</topic><topic>Mammography - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Mass Screening - instrumentation</topic><topic>Mass Screening - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Observer Variation</topic><topic>Prevalence</topic><topic>Radiographic Image Enhancement</topic><topic>Radiographic Magnification - instrumentation</topic><topic>Radiographic Magnification - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>ROC Curve</topic><topic>Screening mammography</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Haygood, Tamara Miner, PhD, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Whitman, Gary J., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Atkinson, E. Neely, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nikolova, Rumiana G., MS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sandoval, Sheisa Y. Claudio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dempsey, Peter J., MD</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of the American College of Radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Haygood, Tamara Miner, PhD, MD</au><au>Whitman, Gary J., MD</au><au>Atkinson, E. Neely, PhD</au><au>Nikolova, Rumiana G., MS</au><au>Sandoval, Sheisa Y. Claudio</au><au>Dempsey, Peter J., MD</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Results of a Survey on Digital Screening Mammography: Prevalence, Efficiency, and Use of Ancillary Diagnostic Aids</atitle><jtitle>Journal of the American College of Radiology</jtitle><addtitle>J Am Coll Radiol</addtitle><date>2008-04</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>5</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>585</spage><epage>592</epage><pages>585-592</pages><issn>1546-1440</issn><eissn>1558-349X</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>18359447</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jacr.2007.10.019</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1546-1440
ispartof Journal of the American College of Radiology, 2008-04, Vol.5 (4), p.585-592
issn 1546-1440
1558-349X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70427552
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete
subjects Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging
Breast Neoplasms - epidemiology
CAD
Cross-Sectional Studies
digital imaging
digital mammography
Efficiency
Female
Humans
Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted
Mammography - methods
Mammography - statistics & numerical data
Mass Screening - instrumentation
Mass Screening - statistics & numerical data
Observer Variation
Prevalence
Radiographic Image Enhancement
Radiographic Magnification - instrumentation
Radiographic Magnification - statistics & numerical data
Radiology
Reproducibility of Results
ROC Curve
Screening mammography
Sensitivity and Specificity
Surveys and Questionnaires
United States
title Results of a Survey on Digital Screening Mammography: Prevalence, Efficiency, and Use of Ancillary Diagnostic Aids
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-14T20%3A15%3A12IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Results%20of%20a%20Survey%20on%20Digital%20Screening%20Mammography:%20Prevalence,%20Efficiency,%20and%20Use%20of%20Ancillary%20Diagnostic%20Aids&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20the%20American%20College%20of%20Radiology&rft.au=Haygood,%20Tamara%20Miner,%20PhD,%20MD&rft.date=2008-04&rft.volume=5&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=585&rft.epage=592&rft.pages=585-592&rft.issn=1546-1440&rft.eissn=1558-349X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jacr.2007.10.019&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E70427552%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=70427552&rft_id=info:pmid/18359447&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S1546144007006412&rfr_iscdi=true