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
  • [21] Comparison of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Full-Field Digital Mammography in Recall Rates and Cancer Detection Rates
    Procasco, Margaret
    [J]. RADIOLOGIC TECHNOLOGY, 2016, 87 (03) : 349 - 351
  • [22] AN OBSERVER PERFORMANCE STUDY COMPARING THE INTERPRETATION OF FULL-FIELD DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY WITH DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS
    Wasan, Rema K.
    Iqbal, Asif
    Evans, David R.
    Peacock, Clare
    Morel, Juliet C.
    Douiri, Abdel
    Michell, Michael J.
    [J]. EJC SUPPLEMENTS, 2010, 8 (06): : 32 - 32
  • [23] Size and Shape of Spherical Objects on Full-Field Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Images
    Yatake, Hidetoshi
    Sawai, Yuka
    Kozuka, Takahiro
    Takeda, Yoshihiro
    Kajihara, Mariko
    Katsuda, Toshizo
    Gotanda, Rumi
    Gotanda, Tatsuhiro
    Abe, Shuji
    Shimada, Makoto
    Tanki, Nobuyoshi
    Nishi, Toshio
    Inaji, Hideo
    [J]. WORLD CONGRESS ON MEDICAL PHYSICS AND BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING 2018, VOL 1, 2019, 68 (01): : 45 - 48
  • [24] There Is No Way That the Cancer Detection Rate for Full-Field Digital Mammography Is the Same as for Digital Breast Tomosynthesis
    Kopans, Daniel B.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2019, 213 (01) : W46 - W46
  • [25] Clinical performance of digital breast tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: Preliminary results
    Gennaro, Gisella
    Baldan, Enrica
    Bezzon, Elisabetta
    La Grassa, Manuela
    Pescarini, Luigi
    di Maggio, Cosimo
    [J]. DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY, PROCEEDINGS, 2008, 5116 : 477 - 482
  • [26] Combinations of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Full-field Digital Mammography for Different Density Types of Breasts
    Chen, Qiong
    Pan, Xin
    Xu, Junfeng
    Ying, Weifeng
    Hou, Yuyu
    Lu, Ming
    An, Dongqin
    Peng, Weijun
    [J]. CURRENT MEDICAL IMAGING, 2024, 20
  • [27] Impact of insurance coverage and socioeconomic factors on screening mammography patients' selection of digital breast tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography
    Falomo, Eniola
    Myers, Kelly
    Reichel, Kent F.
    Carson, Kathryn A.
    Mullen, Lisa
    Di Carlo, Philip
    Harvey, Susan
    [J]. BREAST JOURNAL, 2018, 24 (06): : 1091 - 1093
  • [28] Diagnostic Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Suspicious Calcifications From Various Populations: A Comparison With Full-field Digital Mammography
    Li, Juntao
    Zhang, Hengwei
    Jiang, Hui
    Guo, Xuhui
    Zhang, Yinli
    Qi, Dan
    Guan, Jitian
    Liu, Zhenzhen
    Wu, Erxi
    Luo, Suxia
    [J]. COMPUTATIONAL AND STRUCTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY JOURNAL, 2019, 17 : 82 - 89
  • [29] Comparison of the diagnostic performance of synthesized two-dimensional mammography and full-field digital mammography alone or in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis
    You, Chao
    Zhang, Yunyan
    Gu, Yajia
    Xiao, Qin
    Liu, Guangyu
    Shen, Xigang
    Yang, Wentao
    Peng, Weijun
    [J]. BREAST CANCER, 2020, 27 (01) : 47 - 53
  • [30] Digital breast tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: comparison of the accuracy of lesion measurement and characterization using specimens
    Seo, Nieun
    Kim, Hak Hee
    Shin, Hee Jung
    Cha, Joo Hee
    Kim, Hyunji
    Moon, Jin Hee
    Gong, Gyungyub
    Ahn, Sei-Hyun
    Son, Byung Ho
    [J]. ACTA RADIOLOGICA, 2014, 55 (06) : 661 - 667