George J.W. Partridge
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
Authors
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
How Long Does It Take To Read A Mammogram
(1.8 Mb)
PDF
Publisher Licence URL
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
You might also like
Defining the road map to a UK national lung cancer screening programme
(2023)
Journal Article
Downloadable Citations
About Repository@Nottingham
Administrator e-mail: discovery-access-systems@nottingham.ac.uk
This application uses the following open-source libraries:
SheetJS Community Edition
Apache License Version 2.0 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/)
PDF.js
Apache License Version 2.0 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/)
Font Awesome
SIL OFL 1.1 (http://scripts.sil.org/OFL)
MIT License (http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html)
CC BY 3.0 ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)
Powered by Worktribe © 2024
Advanced Search