The British journal of radiology · 2017
Interpretation of digital breast tomosynthesis: preliminary study on comparison with picture archiving and communication system (PACS) and dedicated workstation.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kim Young Seon, Chang Jung Min, Yi Ann, Shin Sung Ui, Lee Myung Eun, Kim Won Hwa, Cho Nariya, Moon Woo Kyung
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy and efficiency in the interpretation of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) images using a picture archiving and communication system (PACS) and a dedicated workstation.
METHODS: 97 DBT images obtained for screening or diagnostic purposes were stored in both a workstation and a PACS and evaluated in combination with digital mammography by three independent radiologists retrospectively. Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System final assessments and likelihood of malignancy (%) were assigned and the interpretation time when using the workstation and PACS was recorded. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, sensitivities and specificities were compared with histopathological examination and follow-up data as a reference standard.
RESULTS: Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values for cancer detection (0.839 vs 0.815, p = 0.6375) and sensitivity (81.8% vs 75.8%, p = 0.2188) showed no statistically significant differences between the workstation and PACS. However, specificity was significantly higher when analysing on the workstation than when using PACS (83.7% vs 76.9%, p = 0.009). When evaluating DBT images using PACS, only one case was deemed necessary to be reanalysed using the workstation. The mean time to interpret DBT images on PACS (1.68 min/case) was significantly longer than that to interpret on the workstation (1.35 min/case) (p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: Interpretation of DBT images using PACS showed comparable diagnostic performance to a dedicated workstation, even though it required a longer reading time. Advances in knowledge: Interpretation of DBT images using PACS is an alternative to evaluate the images when a dedicated workstation is not available.
METHODS: 97 DBT images obtained for screening or diagnostic purposes were stored in both a workstation and a PACS and evaluated in combination with digital mammography by three independent radiologists retrospectively. Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System final assessments and likelihood of malignancy (%) were assigned and the interpretation time when using the workstation and PACS was recorded. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, sensitivities and specificities were compared with histopathological examination and follow-up data as a reference standard.
RESULTS: Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values for cancer detection (0.839 vs 0.815, p = 0.6375) and sensitivity (81.8% vs 75.8%, p = 0.2188) showed no statistically significant differences between the workstation and PACS. However, specificity was significantly higher when analysing on the workstation than when using PACS (83.7% vs 76.9%, p = 0.009). When evaluating DBT images using PACS, only one case was deemed necessary to be reanalysed using the workstation. The mean time to interpret DBT images on PACS (1.68 min/case) was significantly longer than that to interpret on the workstation (1.35 min/case) (p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: Interpretation of DBT images using PACS showed comparable diagnostic performance to a dedicated workstation, even though it required a longer reading time. Advances in knowledge: Interpretation of DBT images using PACS is an alternative to evaluate the images when a dedicated workstation is not available.