Suppr超能文献

全视野数字化乳腺摄影与数字乳腺断层合成筛查技术召回情况的比较。

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

作者信息

Salkowski Lonie R, Elezaby Mai, Fowler Amy M, Burnside Elizabeth, Woods Ryan W, Strigel Roberta M

机构信息

University of Wisconsin Madison, Department of Radiology, Madison, Wisconsin, United States.

University of Wisconsin Madison, Department of Medical Physics, Madison, Wisconsin, United States.

出版信息

J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2019 Jul;6(3):031403. doi: 10.1117/1.JMI.6.3.031403. Epub 2018 Dec 22.

Abstract

Enhancing quality using the inspection program (EQUIP) augments the FDA/MQSA program ensuring image quality review and implementation of corrective processes. We compared technical recalls between digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM). Prospectively recorded technical recalls of consecutive screening mammograms (10/2013 - 12/2017) were compared for imaging modality [FFDM, DBT + FFDM, DBT + synthesized mammography (SynM)], images requested, and indication(s) (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. DBT exams had significantly less recalls compared to FFDM ( ; ). 98 (27.2%) recalls were for motion, 192 (53.3%) positioning, and 70 (19.4%) technique/artifacts. Theses indications for technical recall were compared for FFDM, DBT + FFDM, and DBT + SynM. There were significant differences in the indications for technical recall prior to and after implementing DBT + SynM ( ; ). Technical recalls declined significantly with the inclusion of DBT (SynM/FFDM) compared to FFDM alone. Recalls for motion demonstrated 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.

摘要

使用检查程序提高质量(EQUIP)强化了FDA/MQSA程序,确保图像质量审查和纠正措施的实施。我们比较了数字乳腺断层合成(DBT)和全视野数字乳腺摄影(FFDM)之间的技术召回情况。对连续筛查乳腺X线摄影(2013年10月 - 2017年12月)前瞻性记录的技术召回情况进行比较,分析成像方式[FFDM、DBT + FFDM、DBT + 合成乳腺摄影(SynM)]、所需图像及召回指征(运动、定位、技术/伪影)。采用卡方检验评估比例之间的统计学显著性。在48,324例筛查乳腺X线摄影中,277例(0.57%)患者因360项指征被召回,共进行了371次重复检查。与FFDM相比,DBT检查的召回率显著更低( ; )。98例(27.2%)召回是由于运动,192例(53.3%)是由于定位,70例(19.4%)是由于技术/伪影。对FFDM、DBT + FFDM和DBT + SynM的这些技术召回指征进行了比较。在实施DBT + SynM前后,技术召回指征存在显著差异( ; )。与单独使用FFDM相比,纳入DBT(SynM/FFDM)后技术召回显著下降。因运动导致的召回下降最为明显。无论采用何种成像方式,定位仍然是技术召回的主要因素,这表明有必要持续对技术人员进行定位方面的培训,以减少技术召回。

相似文献

1
Comparison of screening full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis technical recalls.
J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2019 Jul;6(3):031403. doi: 10.1117/1.JMI.6.3.031403. Epub 2018 Dec 22.
2
Clinical implementation of synthesized mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis in a routine clinical practice.
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017 Nov;166(2):501-509. doi: 10.1007/s10549-017-4431-1. Epub 2017 Aug 5.
3
Comparing Diagnostic Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Full-Field Digital Mammography in a Hybrid Screening Environment.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017 Oct;209(4):929-934. doi: 10.2214/AJR.17.17983. Epub 2017 Jun 22.
6
Double reading of automated breast ultrasound with digital mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening.
Clin Imaging. 2019 May-Jun;55:119-125. doi: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2019.01.019. Epub 2019 Jan 23.

引用本文的文献

1
Addressing Global Gaps in Mammography Screening for Improved Breast Cancer Detection: A Review of the Literature.
Cureus. 2024 Aug 5;16(8):e66198. doi: 10.7759/cureus.66198. eCollection 2024 Aug.
2
Impact of Artificial Intelligence-driven Quality Improvement Software on Mammography Technical Repeat and Recall Rates.
Radiol Artif Intell. 2023 Oct 25;5(6):e230038. doi: 10.1148/ryai.230038. eCollection 2023 Nov.

本文引用的文献

1
Improving Performance of Mammographic Breast Positioning in an Academic Radiology Practice.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 Apr;210(4):807-815. doi: 10.2214/AJR.17.18212. Epub 2018 Feb 7.
2
Mammography Positioning Standards in the Digital Era: Is the Status Quo Acceptable?
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017 Dec;209(6):1419-1425. doi: 10.2214/AJR.16.17522. Epub 2017 Sep 5.
3
Technologists' Characteristics and Quality of Positioning in Daily Practice in a Canadian Breast Cancer Screening Program.
Acad Radiol. 2016 Nov;23(11):1359-1366. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2016.07.002. Epub 2016 Aug 24.
4
Clinical image quality in daily practice of breast cancer mammography screening.
Can Assoc Radiol J. 2014 Aug;65(3):199-206. doi: 10.1016/j.carj.2014.02.001. Epub 2014 Jun 16.
5
Hidden costs of poor image quality: a radiologist's perspective.
J Am Coll Radiol. 2014 Oct;11(10):974-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2014.04.008. Epub 2014 Jun 2.
6
Positioning challenges in mammography.
Radiol Technol. 2014 Mar-Apr;85(4):417-39M; quiz 440-3M.
8
The analysis of 2 × 2 contingency tables--yet again.
Stat Med. 2011 Apr 15;30(8):890; author reply 891-2. doi: 10.1002/sim.4116.
9
Digital mammography: clinical image evaluation.
Radiol Clin North Am. 2010 Sep;48(5):903-15. doi: 10.1016/j.rcl.2010.06.006.
10
Missed breast carcinoma; why and how to avoid?
J Egypt Natl Canc Inst. 2007 Sep;19(3):178-94.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验