How long does it take to read a mammogram? Investigating the reading time of digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography.

J W Partridge, G.; Darker, I.; J James, J.; Satchithananda, K.; Sharma, N.; Valencia, A.; Teh, W.; Khan, H.; Muscat, E.; J Michell, M.; Chen, Y.

How long does it take to read a mammogram? Investigating the reading time of digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography.

All Authors

J W Partridge, G.

Darker, I.

J James, J.

Satchithananda, K.

Sharma, N.

Valencia, A.

Teh, W.

Khan, H.

Muscat, E.

J Michell, M.

Show 1 more

LTHT Author

Sharma, Nisha

LTHT Department

Breast Screening
Radiology

Publication Date

2024

Item Type

Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial

Abstract

PURPOSE: To analyse digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) reading times in the screening setting, compared to 2D full-field digital mammography (FFDM), and investigate the impact of reader experience and professional group on interpretation times. METHOD: Reading time data were recorded in the PROSPECTS Trial, a prospective randomised trial comparing DBT plus FFDM or synthetic 2D mammography (S2D) to FFDM alone, in the National Health Service (NHS) breast screening programme, from January 2019-February 2023. Time to read DBT+FFDM or DBT+S2D and FFDM alone was calculated per case and reading times were compared between modalities using dependent T-tests. Reading times were compared between readers from different professional groups (radiologists and radiographer readers) and experience levels using independent T-tests. The learning curve effect of using DBT in screening on reading time was investigated using a Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: Forty-eight readers interpreted 1,242 FFDM batches (34,210 FFDM cases) and 973 DBT batches (13,983 DBT cases). DBT reading time was doubled compared to FFDM (2.09 +/- 0.64 min vs. 0.98 +/- 0.30 min; p < 0.001), and DBT+S2D reading was longer than DBT + FFDM (2.24 +/- 0.62 min vs. 2.04 +/- 0.46 min; p = 0.006). No difference was identified in reading time between radiologists and radiographers (2.06 +/- 0.71 min vs. 2.14 +/- 0.46 min, respectively; p = 0.71). Readers with five or more years of experience reading DBT were quicker than those with less experience (1.86 +/- 0.56 min vs. 2.37 +/- 0.65 min; p = 0.008), and DBT reading time decreased after less than 9 months accrued screening experience (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: DBT reading times were double those of FFDM in the screening setting, but there was a short learning curve effect with readers showing significant improvements in reading times within the first nine months of DBT experience. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier: NCT03733106.