Comparison of screening full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis technical recalls

被引:0
|
作者
Salkowski, Lonie R. [1 ,2 ]
Elezaby, Mai [1 ]
Fowler, Amy M. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Burnside, Elizabeth [1 ,3 ,4 ]
Woods, Ryan W. [1 ]
Strigel, Roberta M. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Wisconsin, Dept Radiol, 600 Highland Ave, Madison, WI 53792 USA
[2] Univ Wisconsin, Dept Med Phys, 1111 Highland Ave, Madison, WI 53705 USA
[3] Univ Wisconsin, Carbone Canc Ctr, 600 Highland Ave, Madison, WI 53792 USA
[4] Univ Wisconsin, Sch Med & Publ Hlth, Inst Clin Translat Sci, 750 Highland Ave, Madison, WI 53705 USA
关键词
Technical recall; EQUIP; breast imaging; digital mammography; FFDM; tomosynthesis; CLINICAL IMAGE QUALITY; CANCERS; ACCREDITATION; STANDARDS; TABLES;
D O I
10.1117/12.2318059
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
The Enhancing Quality Using the Inspection Program (EQUIP) augments the FDA/MQSA program to ensure image quality review and implementation of corrective processes. In our screening mammography program, we compared technical recalls between digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and 2D full-field digital mammography (FFDM). This HIPAA-compliant study was exempt from IRB review. In consecutive screening mammograms (October 2013 through December 2017), prospectively recorded technical recalls were compared for imaging modality (FFDM, DBT+FFDM, DBT+synthesized mammography (SynM)), images requested, and indication(s) for technical recall (motion, positioning, technical/artifact). Chi-squared tests evaluated statistical significance between proportions. Of 48,324 screening mammograms, 277 (0.57%) patients were recalled for 360 indications with 371 repeated views. There were significantly less recalls among DBT exams compared to FFDM (X-2 = 25.239; p = 0<0.001). Overall 98 (27.2%) technical recalls were for motion, 192 (53.3%) positioning, and 70 (19.4%) technique/artifacts. Of these, 91 (31.1%) FFDM indications were for motion, 138 (47.1%) positioning, and 64 (21.8%) technique/artifacts. For DBT+FFDM there were 7 (15.6%) for motion, 35 (77.8%) positioning, and 3 (6.7%) technique/artifacts, compared to DBT+SynM with 0 (0%) indications for motion, 19 (86.4%) positioning, and 3 (13.6%) technique/artifacts. There were significant differences in the indications for technical recall prior to and after implementing DBT+SynM (X-2 = 18.719; p<0.001). Technical recalls declined significantly with the inclusion of DBT (SynM/FFDM) as compared to FFDM alone; with recalls for motion demonstrating the greatest decrease. Positioning remains a dominant factor for technical recall regardless of modality, supporting the opportunity for continued technologist education in positioning to decrease technical recalls.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparison of screening full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis technical recalls
    Salkowski, Lonie R.
    Elezaby, Mai
    Fowler, Amy M.
    Burnside, Elizabeth
    Woods, Ryan W.
    Strigel, Roberta M.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL IMAGING, 2019, 6 (03)
  • [2] A comparison of reading times in full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis
    Connor, S. J.
    Lim, Y. Y.
    Tate, C.
    Entwistle, H.
    Morris, J.
    Whiteside, S.
    Sergeant, J.
    Wilson, M.
    Beetles, U.
    Boggis, C.
    Gilbert, F.
    Astley, S.
    [J]. BREAST CANCER RESEARCH, 2012, 14
  • [3] A comparison of reading times in full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis
    SJ Connor
    YY Lim
    C Tate
    H Entwistle
    J Morris
    S Whiteside
    J Sergeant
    M Wilson
    U Beetles
    C Boggis
    F Gilbert
    S Astley
    [J]. Breast Cancer Research, 14
  • [4] Baseline Screening Mammography: Performance of Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis
    McDonald, Elizabeth S.
    McCarthy, Anne Marie
    Akhtar, Amana L.
    Synnestvedt, Marie B.
    Schnall, Mitchell
    Conant, Emily F.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2015, 205 (05) : 1143 - 1148
  • [5] A comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for the detection of breast cancers
    Woo Jung Choi
    Hak Hee Kim
    Sun Young Lee
    Eun Young Chae
    Hee Jung Shin
    Joo Hee Cha
    Byung Ho Son
    Sei Hyun Ahn
    Young-Wook Choi
    [J]. Breast Cancer, 2016, 23 : 886 - 892
  • [6] A comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for the detection of breast cancers
    Choi, Woo Jung
    Kim, Hak Hee
    Lee, Sun Young
    Chae, Eun Young
    Shin, Hee Jung
    Cha, Joo Hee
    Son, Byung Ho
    Ahn, Sei Hyun
    Choi, Young-Wook
    [J]. BREAST CANCER, 2016, 23 (06) : 886 - 892
  • [7] A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis
    Michell, M. J.
    Iqbal, A.
    Wasan, R. K.
    Evans, D. R.
    Peacock, C.
    Lawinski, C. P.
    Douiri, A.
    Wilson, R.
    Whelehan, P.
    [J]. CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 2012, 67 (10) : 976 - 981
  • [8] Comparison of full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in ultrasonography-detected breast cancers
    Nam, Kyung Jin
    Han, Boo-Kyung
    Ko, Eun Sook
    Choi, Ji Soo
    Ko, Eun Young
    Jeong, Dong Wook
    Choo, Ki Seok
    [J]. BREAST, 2015, 24 (05): : 649 - 655
  • [9] Assessment of extent of breast cancer: Comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography
    Mun, H. S.
    Kim, H. H.
    Shin, H. J.
    Cha, J. H.
    Ruppel, P. L.
    Oh, H. Y.
    Chae, E. Y.
    [J]. CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 2013, 68 (12) : 1254 - 1259
  • [10] Comparison of Mean Glandular Dose between Full-Field Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis
    Teoh, Kar Choon
    Manan, Hanani Abdul
    Norsuddin, Norhashimah Mohd
    Rizuana, Iqbal Hussain
    [J]. HEALTHCARE, 2021, 9 (12)