Skip to main content

Research Repository

Advanced Search

How Long Does It Take to Read a Mammogram? Investigating the Reading Time of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammography

Partridge, George J.W.; Darker, Iain; James, Jonathan J.; Satchithananda, Keshthra; Sharma, Nisha; Valencia, Alexandra; Teh, William; Khan, Humaira; Muscat, Elizabeth; Michell, Michael J.; Chen, Yan

How Long Does It Take to Read a Mammogram? Investigating the Reading Time of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammography Thumbnail


Authors

George J.W. Partridge

IAIN DARKER IAIN.DARKER1@NOTTINGHAM.AC.UK
Senior Research Fellow

Jonathan J. James

Keshthra Satchithananda

Nisha Sharma

Alexandra Valencia

William Teh

Humaira Khan

Elizabeth Muscat

Michael J. Michell

YAN CHEN Yan.Chen@nottingham.ac.uk
Professor of Digital Health



Abstract

Purpose
To analyse digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) reading times in the screening setting, compared to 2D full-field digital mammography (FFDM), and investigate the impact of reader experience and professional group on interpretation times.

Method
Reading time data were recorded in the PROSPECTS Trial, a prospective randomised trial comparing DBT plus FFDM or synthetic 2D mammography (S2D) to FFDM alone, in the National Health Service (NHS) breast screening programme, from January 2019-February 2023. Time to read DBT+FFDM or DBT+S2D and FFDM alone was calculated per case and reading times were compared between modalities using dependent T-tests. Reading times were compared between readers from different professional groups (radiologists and radiographer readers) and experience levels using independent T-tests. The learning curve effect of using DBT in screening on reading time was investigated using a Kruskal-Wallis test.

Results
Forty-eight readers interpreted 1,242 FFDM batches (34,210 FFDM cases) and 973 DBT batches (13,983 DBT cases). DBT reading time was doubled compared to FFDM (2.09 ± 0.64 min vs. 0.98 ± 0.30 min; p < 0.001), and DBT+S2D reading was longer than DBT + FFDM (2.24 ± 0.62 min vs. 2.04 ± 0.46 min; p = 0.006). No difference was identified in reading time between radiologists and radiographers (2.06 ± 0.71 min vs. 2.14 ± 0.46 min, respectively; p = 0.71). Readers with five or more years of experience reading DBT were quicker than those with less experience (1.86 ± 0.56 min vs. 2.37 ± 0.65 min; p = 0.008), and DBT reading time decreased after less than 9 months accrued screening experience (p = 0.01).

Conclusions
DBT reading times were double those of FFDM in the screening setting, but there was a short learning curve effect with readers showing significant improvements in reading times within the first nine months of DBT experience.

Journal Article Type Article
Acceptance Date May 27, 2024
Online Publication Date May 28, 2024
Publication Date 2024-08
Deposit Date Jun 17, 2024
Publicly Available Date Jun 18, 2024
Journal European Journal of Radiology
Print ISSN 0720-048X
Publisher Elsevier
Peer Reviewed Peer Reviewed
Volume 177
Article Number 111535
DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2024.111535
Public URL https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/output/36006993
Publisher URL https://www.ejradiology.com/article/S0720-048X(24)00251-1/fulltext

Files





You might also like



Downloadable Citations