Digital and screen-film mammography: comparison of image acquisition and interpretation times.

OBJECTIVE The objective of our study was to compare acquisition times and interpretation times of screening examinations using screen-film mammography and soft-copy digital mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS Technologist study acquisition time from examination initiation to release of the screenee was measured for both screen-film and digital mammography (100 cases each) in routine clinical practice. The total interpretation time for screening mammography was also measured for 183 hard-copy screen-film cases and 181 soft-copy digital cases interpreted by a total of seven breast imaging radiologists, four experienced breast imagers, and three breast imaging fellows. RESULTS Screening mammography acquisition time averaged 21.6 minutes for screen-film and 14.1 minutes for digital, a highly significant 35% shorter time for digital than screen-film (p < 10(-17)). The average number of images per case acquired with digital mammography was higher than that for screen-film mammography (4.23 for screen-film, 4.50 for digital; p = 0.047). The total interpretation time averaged 1.4 minutes for screen-film mammography and 2.3 minutes for digital mammography, a highly significant 57% longer interpretation time for digital (p < 10(-11)). In addition, technical problems delaying interpretation were encountered in none of the 183 screen-film cases but occurred in nine (5%) of the 181 digital cases. CONCLUSION Compared with screen-film mammography, the use of digital mammography for screening examinations significantly shortened acquisition time but significantly increased interpretation time. In addition, more technical problems were encountered that delayed the interpretation of digital cases.

[1]  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.

[2]  Mary Scott Soo,et al.  Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display. , 2002, Radiology.

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

[4]  Michael Trambert Digital Mammography Integrated with PACS: Real World Issues, Considerations, Workflow Solutions, and Reading Paradigms , 2006 .

[5]  M. Zuley,et al.  Full-Field Digital Mammography Workflow , 2006 .

[6]  Andrew D. A. Maidment,et al.  Current status of full-field digital mammography. , 2000, Academic radiology.

[7]  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.

[8]  R. Hendrick Impact of ACRIN DMIST Results on the Technologist and Mammography Practice , 2005 .

[9]  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.

[10]  Felix Diekmann,et al.  Digital mammography: what do we and what don’t we know? , 2007, European Radiology.

[11]  Margarita Zuley How to transition to digital mammography. , 2007, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[12]  Computed Radiography for Mammography: Operational Perspectives , 2006 .

[13]  Etta D Pisano,et al.  Issues to consider in converting to digital mammography. , 2007, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[14]  Full Field Digital Mammography: Initial Medical Legal Concerns , 2006 .