The effect of Premium View post-processing software on digital mammographic reporting.

The aim of this study was to identify the effect of the installation of Premium View post-processing software on our mammographic reporting performance, in particular the effects on our recall rate, biopsy rate and cancer detection rate. The case notes and imaging of all patients discussed at the weekly indeterminate imaging multidisciplinary team meeting were reviewed retrospectively before, immediately after and at a delayed interval following the installation of Premium View post-processing software. Factors recorded included the mammographic abnormality, further investigations and final histology. The indeterminate mammogram rate increased significantly from a baseline of 5.7% (before Premium View) to 8.7% in the time period immediately after the installation of Premium View (p=0.002). The stereotactic biopsy rate also increased from 0.8% to 2.4% (p=0.001), with a significant increase in the overall cancer detection rate from 3.4% to 4.4% (p=0.02). In the follow-up period several months after the installation of Premium View, the indeterminate mammogram rate returned to a level similar to that before Premium View (6%; p=0.7). The stereotactic biopsy rate remained significantly higher at 1.6% (p=0.07), as did the overall cancer detection rate of 5.0% (p=0.003). In conclusion, the use of Premium View may lead to higher cancer detection rates, at the expense of an initial increase in recall rate. Although prospective studies are suggested, this result is of interest in light of the proposed installation of digital mammography across the NHS Breast Screening Programme.

[1]  M. Williams,et al.  The cancer reform strategy. , 2008, Clinical radiology.

[2]  Woo Kyung Moon,et al.  Computer-aided detection in full-field digital mammography: sensitivity and reproducibility in serial examinations. , 2008, Radiology.

[3]  Stefano Ciatto,et al.  Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[4]  Hazel J. Scott,et al.  Breast screening: PERFORMS identifies key mammographic training needs. , 2006, The British journal of radiology.

[5]  P. Taylor,et al.  Computer-aided detection in the United Kingdom National Breast Screening Programme: prospective study. , 2005, Radiology.

[6]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Diagnostic Performance of Digital Versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[7]  Donglin Zeng,et al.  The effects of gray scale image processing on digital mammography interpretation performance. , 2005, Academic radiology.

[8]  U. Fischer,et al.  Digital mammography: current state and future aspects , 2005, European Radiology.

[9]  Etta D Pisano,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of Fischer Senoscan Digital Mammography versus screen-film mammography in a diagnostic mammography population. , 2004, Academic radiology.

[10]  Per Skaane,et al.  Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program--the Oslo II Study. , 2004, Radiology.

[11]  Per Skaane,et al.  Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--Oslo I study. , 2003, Radiology.

[12]  Andrew D. A. Maidment,et al.  Digital Mammography , 2019, Advances in Clinical Radiology.

[13]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. , 2002, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[14]  E. Grabbe,et al.  Magnification mammography: a comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for the detection of simulated small masses and microcalcifications , 2002, European Radiology.

[15]  E. Grabbe,et al.  Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions , 2002, European Radiology.

[16]  M. Reiser,et al.  Chest imaging with flat-panel detector at low and standard doses: comparison with storage phosphor technology in normal patients , 2002, European Radiology.

[17]  R M Nishikawa.  Computer-aided diagnosis complements full-field digital mammography. , 1999, Diagnostic imaging.

[18]  M J Yaffe,et al.  Current status of digital mammography. , 1996, Seminars in ultrasound, CT, and MR.