Department of Radiology, The George Washington University Medical Center, 2150 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20037, USA.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011 Jun;196(6):1436-8. doi: 10.2214/AJR.10.5430.
The purpose of our study was to quantitatively compare the time for interpretation of screening full-field digital mammography (FFDM) images using prior analog film mammograms for comparison versus digitized prior analog mammograms.
Images from 100 FFDM studies were interpreted by four radiologists. All FFDM images had comparison analog mammograms obtained a minimum of 1 year earlier that were digitized using a 43-μm film digitizer. Initially, the FFDM images were interpreted using the digitized prior mammogram on two, 5-megapixel monitors and PACS. All available PACS tools could be used. Four weeks later, the same 100 screening FFDMs were interpreted using the original analog mammograms on an alternator at 90° to the monitors used to interpret the screening FFDMs. The interpretation times were recorded and compared. The results were compared and evaluated for statistical significance using statistical software, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05.
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.
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.
本研究的目的是定量比较使用先前数字化模拟乳腺摄影术（FFDM）图像进行比较与使用原始模拟乳腺摄影术进行比较时，FFDM 筛查图像的解释时间。
100 例 FFDM 研究的图像由四位放射科医生进行解读。所有 FFDM 图像均具有至少 1 年前获得的比较模拟乳腺摄影术，并使用 43μm 胶片数字化仪进行数字化。最初，在两个 500 万像素的监视器和 PACS 上使用数字化的先前的乳腺摄影术来解释 FFDM 图像。可以使用所有可用的 PACS 工具。4 周后，在与用于解释筛查 FFDM 的监视器成 90°的交替器上，使用原始的模拟乳腺摄影术来解释相同的 100 例筛查 FFDM。记录并比较解释时间。使用统计软件比较并评估结果的统计学意义，统计学意义设定为 p < 0.05。
对于每位放射科医生，使用数字化先前所进行的 FFDM 阅读时间的平均值明显短于使用模拟胶片先前所计算的 FFDM 阅读时间的平均值。在记录的时间之间，数字化模拟与模拟之间的差异在 11.31 至 74.18 秒之间。四位读者的阅读时间范围从 17.32 秒到 185.94 秒，当使用模拟胶片先前的乳腺摄影术时，平均值为 58.56 秒。当使用数字化模拟先前的乳腺摄影术时，四位读者的阅读时间范围从 11.32 秒到 109.11 秒，平均值为 39.76 秒。平均阅读时间差异计算为 18.80 秒，表明当比较研究使用数字化先前的模拟而不是模拟先前的模拟时，解释速度提高了 32%。
当 FFDM 筛查乳房 X 光检查使用数字化模拟比较乳房 X 光检查时，与使用原始模拟胶片乳房 X 光检查相比，解释时间平均提高了 32.1%。如果使用数字化先前的模拟乳房 X 光检查，这应该允许在相同的时间内解释更多的 FFDM。
