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 Gilbert

doi:10.1117/12.2006039

28 March 2013 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 Gilbert

Author Affiliations +

Proceedings Volume 8673, Medical Imaging 2013: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment; 86730S (2013) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2006039
Event: SPIE Medical Imaging, 2013, Lake Buena Vista (Orlando Area), Florida, United States

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.

Citation Download Citation

Susan Astley, Sophie Connor, Yit Lim, Catriona Tate, Helen Entwistle, Julie Morris, Sigrid Whiteside, Jamie Sergeant, Mary Wilson, Ursula Beetles, Caroline Boggis, and Fiona Gilbert "A comparison of image interpretation times in full field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis", Proc. SPIE 8673, Medical Imaging 2013: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, 86730S (28 March 2013); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2006039

ACCESS THE FULL ARTICLE

INSTITUTIONAL
Select your institution to access the SPIE Digital Library.

SELECT YOUR INSTITUTION

PERSONAL
Sign in with your SPIE account to access your personal subscriptions or to use specific features such as save to my library, sign up for alerts, save searches, etc.

PERSONAL SIGN IN

No SPIE Account? Create one

PURCHASE THIS CONTENT

SUBSCRIBE TO DIGITAL LIBRARY

50 downloads per 1-year subscription

Members: $195

Non-members: $335 ADD TO CART

25 downloads per 1 - year subscription

Members: $145

Non-members: $250 ADD TO CART

PURCHASE SINGLE ARTICLE

Includes PDF, HTML & Video, when available