The British journal of radiology · 2012
Application of breast tomosynthesis in screening: incremental effect on mammography acquisition and reading time.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M, Anesi V, Burlon S, Cauli E, Depaoli M, Larentis L, Malesani V, Targa L, Baldo P, Houssami N
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to supplement the paucity of information available on logistical aspects of the application of three-dimensional (3D) mammography in breast screening.
METHODS: We prospectively examined the effect on radiographers' and radiologists' workload of implementing 3D mammography in screening by comparing image acquisition time and screen-reading time for two-dimensional (2D) mammography with that of combined 2D+3D mammography. Radiologists' accuracy was also calculated.
RESULTS: Average acquisition time (measured from start of first-view breast positioning to compression release at completion of last view) for seven radiographers, based on 20 screening examinations, was longer for 2D+3D (4 min 3 s; range 3 min 53 s-4 min 18 s) than 2D mammography (3 min 13 s; range 3 min 0 s-3 min 26 s; p<0.01). Average radiologists' reading time per screening examination (three radiologists reading case-mix of 100 screens: 10 cancers, 90 controls) was longer for 2D+3D (77 s; range 60-90 s) than for 2D mammography (33 s; range 25-46 s; p<0.01). 2D+3D screen-reading was associated with detection of more cancers and with substantially fewer recalls than 2D mammography alone.
CONCLUSION: Relative to standard 2D mammography, combined 2D+3D mammography prolongs image acquisition time and screen-reading time (at initial implementation), and appears to be associated with improved screening accuracy.
ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: These findings provide relevant information to guide larger trials of integrated 3D mammography (2D+3D) and its potential implementation into screening practice.
METHODS: We prospectively examined the effect on radiographers' and radiologists' workload of implementing 3D mammography in screening by comparing image acquisition time and screen-reading time for two-dimensional (2D) mammography with that of combined 2D+3D mammography. Radiologists' accuracy was also calculated.
RESULTS: Average acquisition time (measured from start of first-view breast positioning to compression release at completion of last view) for seven radiographers, based on 20 screening examinations, was longer for 2D+3D (4 min 3 s; range 3 min 53 s-4 min 18 s) than 2D mammography (3 min 13 s; range 3 min 0 s-3 min 26 s; p<0.01). Average radiologists' reading time per screening examination (three radiologists reading case-mix of 100 screens: 10 cancers, 90 controls) was longer for 2D+3D (77 s; range 60-90 s) than for 2D mammography (33 s; range 25-46 s; p<0.01). 2D+3D screen-reading was associated with detection of more cancers and with substantially fewer recalls than 2D mammography alone.
CONCLUSION: Relative to standard 2D mammography, combined 2D+3D mammography prolongs image acquisition time and screen-reading time (at initial implementation), and appears to be associated with improved screening accuracy.
ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: These findings provide relevant information to guide larger trials of integrated 3D mammography (2D+3D) and its potential implementation into screening practice.