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
  • [41] Comparison of full-field digital mammography with CR mammography
    Uchiyama, N
    Kobayashi, H
    Tajima, H
    Machida, M
    Kumazaki, T
    Moriyama, N
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2002, 225 : 119 - 119
  • [42] Two-View Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening with Synthetically Reconstructed Projection Images: Comparison with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis with Full-Field Digital Mammographic Images
    Skaane, Per
    Bandos, Andriy I.
    Eben, Ellen B.
    Jebsen, Ingvild N.
    Krager, Mona
    Haakenaasen, Unni
    Ekseth, Ulrika
    Izadi, Mina
    Hofvind, Solveig
    Gullien, Randi
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2014, 271 (03) : 655 - 663
  • [43] Performance of full-field digital mammography versus digital breast
    Wang, Mengru
    Zhuang, Shan
    Sheng, Liuli
    Zhao, Yu Nian
    Shen, Wenrong
    [J]. PRECISION MEDICAL SCIENCES, 2022, 11 (02): : 56 - 61
  • [44] Comparison of radiation doses between diagnostic full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): a clinical study
    Asbeutah, Akram M.
    AlMajran, Abdullah A.
    Brindhaban, Ajit
    Asbeutah, Saad A.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL RADIATION SCIENCES, 2020, 67 (03) : 185 - 192
  • [45] A comparison of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in the detection of microcalcifications by correlating mammographic and pathologic findings
    Farghadani, Maryam
    Ghadiri-faraz, Bahar
    Riahinezhad, Maryam
    Sarami, Sahar
    [J]. IMMUNOPATHOLOGIA PERSA, 2024, 10 (02):
  • [46] Can Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Replace Full-Field Digital Mammography? A Multireader, Multicase Study of Wide-Angle Tomosynthesis
    Georgian-Smith, Dianne
    Obuchowski, Nancy A.
    Lo, Joseph Y.
    Brem, Rachel F.
    Baker, Jay A.
    Fisher, Paul R.
    Rim, Alice
    Zhao, Wei
    Fajardo, Laurie L.
    Mertelmeier, Thomas
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2019, 212 (06) : 1393 - 1399
  • [47] Lesion-specific exposure parameters for breast cancer diagnosis on digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography
    Ma, Le
    Liu, Hui
    Lin, Xiaojia
    Cai, Yuxing
    Zhang, Ling
    Chen, Weiguo
    Qin, Genggeng
    [J]. BIOMEDICAL SIGNAL PROCESSING AND CONTROL, 2022, 77
  • [48] Digital Mammography Versus Full-Field Digital Mammography
    Hall, Ferris M.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2012, 198 (01) : 240 - 240
  • [49] Comparison of Full-Field Digital Mammography with Synthesized Mammography from Tomosynthesis in a Diagnostic population: Prospective Study
    Dhamija, Ekta
    Mohan, Supraja Laguduva
    Anand, Roshni
    Khan, Maroof Ahmad
    Deo, Sankaravamsam Venkata Suryanarayana
    Hari, Smriti
    [J]. INDIAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY AND IMAGING, 2024,
  • [50] Diagnostic accuracy of resection margin in specimen radiography: digital breast tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography
    Giovanna Romanucci
    Sara Mercogliano
    Elisabetta Carucci
    Alessandro Cina
    Elisa Zantedeschi
    Andrea Caneva
    Chiara Benassuti
    Francesca Fornasa
    [J]. La radiologia medica, 2021, 126 : 768 - 773