TY - JOUR
T1 - Results of a Survey on Digital Screening Mammography
T2 - Prevalence, Efficiency, and Use of Ancillary Diagnostic Aids
AU - Haygood, Tamara Miner
AU - Whitman, Gary J.
AU - Atkinson, E. Neely
AU - Nikolova, Rumiana G.
AU - Sandoval, Sheisa Y.Claudio
AU - Dempsey, Peter J.
N1 - Copyright:
Copyright 2014 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2008/4
Y1 - 2008/4
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - CAD
KW - Screening mammography
KW - digital imaging
KW - digital mammography
KW - efficiency
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=40949153911&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=40949153911&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jacr.2007.10.019
DO - 10.1016/j.jacr.2007.10.019
M3 - Article
C2 - 18359447
AN - SCOPUS:40949153911
SN - 1546-1440
VL - 5
SP - 585
EP - 592
JO - Journal of the American College of Radiology
JF - Journal of the American College of Radiology
IS - 4
ER -