Full-Field Digital Mammographic Interpretation With Prior Analog Versus Prior Digitized Analog Mammography: Time for Interpretation

Full-Field Digital Mammographic Interpretation With Prior Analog Versus Prior Digitized Analog Mammography: Time for Interpretation
Akshay S. Garg, Jocelyn A. Rapelyea, Lauren R. Rechtman, Jessica Torrente, Rebecca B. Bittner, Caitrin M. Coffey, and Rachel F. Brem
AJR 2011;196:1436-1438

Link to Journal

RESULTS:
For each radiologist, the mean reading time for FFDM with digitized priors was significantly shorter in length in comparison with the mean reading time calculated for interpreting FFDM using analog film priors. The differences in times recorded between digitized analog versus analog ranged from 11.31 to 74.18 seconds. The reading times for the four readers ranged from 17.32 to 185.94 seconds, with a mean of 58.56 seconds when using analog film prior mammograms. When using digitized analog prior mammograms, the reading times for the four readers ranged from 11.32 to 109.11 seconds with a mean of 39.76 seconds. The average difference in reading time was calculated to be 18.80 seconds, showing that there is a 32% increase in interpretation speed when using a digitized prior analog for comparison studies as opposed to an analog prior.

CONCLUSION:
There is a statistically significant 32.1% average improvement in interpretation time when FFDM screening mammograms use digitized analog comparison mammograms than if FFDM is interpreted with the original analog film mammograms. This should allow more FFDMs to be interpreted in the same amount of time if digitized prior analog mammograms are used