Related resources
Full-text held externally
- DOI: 10.1117/12.2006039
Search for item elsewhere
University researcher(s)
A comparison of image interpretation times in Full Field Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
Susan Astley, Sophie Connor, Yit Lim, Catriona Tate, Helen Entwistle, Julie Morris, Sigrid Whiteside, Jamie Sergeant, Mary Wilson, Ursula Beetles, Caroline Boggis, Fiona Gilb
In: Abbey, C; Mello-Thoms, C. Proc. SPIE Medical Imaging 2013: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, Article Number: 86730S : SPIE Medical Imaging; San Diego, USA. Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment; 2013.
Access to files
Full-text and supplementary files are not available from Manchester eScholar. Full-text is available externally using the following links:
Full-text held externally
- DOI: 10.1117/12.2006039
Abstract
Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) provides three-dimensional images of the breast that enable radiologists to discern whether densities are due to overlapping structures or lesions. To aid assessment of the cost-effectiveness of DBT for screening, we have compared the time taken to interpret DBT images and the corresponding two-dimensional Full Field Digital Mammography (FFDM) images. Four Consultant Radiologists experienced in reading FFDM images (4 years 8 months to 8 years) with training in DBT interpretation but more limited experience (137-407 cases in the past 6 months) were timed reading between 24 and 32 two view FFDM and DBT cases. The images were of women recalled from screening for further assessment and women under surveillance because of a family history of breast cancer. FFDM images were read before DBT, according to local practice. The median time for readers to interpret FFDM images was 17.0 seconds, with an interquartile range of 12.3-23.6 seconds. For DBT, the median time was 66.0 seconds, and the interquartile range was 51.1-80.5 seconds. The difference was statistically significant (p<0.001). Reading times were significantly longer in family history clinics (p<0.01). Although it took approximately four times as long to interpret DBT than FFDM images, the cases were more complex than would be expected for routine screening, and with higher mammographic density. The readers were relatively inexperienced in DBT interpretation and may increase their speed over time. The difference in times between clinics may be due to increased throughput at assessment, or decreased density. © (2013) COPYRIGHT Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE). Downloading of the abstract is permitted for personal use only.