Why does it take longer to read digital than film-screen screening mammograms? A partial explanation

Journal of Digital Imaging

Volumn 23, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 170-180

  Haygood, Tamara Miner ^a   Wang, Jihong ^a   Lane, Deanna ^a   Galvan, Eva ^b   Neely Atkinson, E ^a   Stephens, Tanya ^a   Whitman, Gary J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^b YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Efficiency; Full field digital mammography (FFDM); Image interpretation; Image manipulation; Mammography; Screening mammography

Indexed keywords

FULL FIELD DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; HANGING PROTOCOLS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION; IMAGE MANIPULATION; MAMMOGRAPHY SCREENING; SCREENING MAMMOGRAM;

IMAGE ANALYSIS; MAMMOGRAPHY; X RAY SCREENS;

DECISION MAKING;

ARTICLE; BREAST TUMOR; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; INSTRUMENTATION; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; METHODOLOGY; RADIOGRAPHY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TIME; X RAY FILM;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; COHORT STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHIC MAGNIFICATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TIME FACTORS; X-RAY FILM;

EID: 77952236441     PISSN: 08971889     EISSN: 1618727X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10278-009-9177-9     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. EA Berns, et al. 2006 Digital and screen-film mammography: comparison of image acquisition and interpretation times AJR Am J Roentgenol 187 38 41 10.2214/AJR.05.1397 16794152 (Pubitemid 46100142)
2. www.fda.gov/CDRH/MAMMOGRAPHY/scorecard-statistics.html. Accessed December 26, 2006, July 24, 2007, December 28, 2007, and October 2, 2008.
3. ED Pisano, et al. 2005 Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening N Engl J Med 353 1773 1783 10.1056/NEJMoa052911 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2MXhtFKrtLnN 16169887 (Pubitemid 41549889)
4. ED Pisano, et al. 2008 Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST Radiology 246 376 383 10.1148/radiol.2461070200 18227537
5. P Skaane S Hofvind A Skjennald 2007 Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study Radiology 244 708 717 10.1148/radiol.2443061478 17709826 (Pubitemid 47292081)
6. MR Del Turco P Mantellini S Ciatto, et al. 2007 Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts AJR 189 860 866 10.2214/AJR.07.2303 17885057 (Pubitemid 47479768)
7. TM Haygood J Wang EN Atkinson D Lane TW Stephens P Patel GJ Whitman 2009 Timed efficiency of digital and film-screen screening mammographic interpretation AJR Am J Roentgenol 192 216 220 10.2214/AJR.07.3608 19098202
8. JM Lewin, et al. 2002 Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer AJR Am J Roentgenol 179 671 677 12185042
9. E Cole, et al. 2004 Diagnostic accuracy of Fischer Senoscan Digital Mammography versus screen-film mammography in a diagnostic mammography population Acad Radiol 11 879 886 10.1016/j.acra.2004.04.003 15288038 (Pubitemid 39006235)
10. P Skaane K Young A Skjennald 2003 Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading-Oslo I study Radiology 229 877 884 10.1148/radiol.2293021171 14576447 (Pubitemid 37467596)
11. P Skaane A Skjennald 2004 Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program-the Oslo II study Radiology 232 197 204 10.1148/radiol.2321031624 15155893 (Pubitemid 38787838)
12. TM Haygood GJ Whitman EN Atkinson RG Nikolova SYC Sandoval PJ Dempsey 2008 Results of a survey on digital screening mammography: prevalence, efficiency, and use of ancillary diagnostic aids J Am Coll Radiol 5 585 592 10.1016/j.jacr.2007.10.019 18359447 (Pubitemid 351417454)
13. KA Herrmann, et al. 2001 Zeitbedarf bei der befundung digitaler thoraxaufnahmen am monitor im verleich zum alternator Roentgenpraxis 53 260 265 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MzjsFSqsg%3D%3D 11402875
14. BM Hemminger 2003 Soft copy display requirements for digital mammography J Digit Imaging 16 292 305 10.1007/s10278-003-1659-6 14669064 (Pubitemid 40824281)
15. E Pisano, et al. 2002 Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display Radiology 223 483 488 10.1148/radiol.2232010704 11997557
16. RE Hendrick, et al. 2008 Accuracy of soft-copy digital mammography versus that of screen-film mammography according to digital manufacturer: ACRIN DMIST retrospective multireader study Radiology 247 38 48 10.1148/radiol.2471070418 18372463