Journal of Digital Imaging

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 170–180

Why Does It Take Longer to Read Digital Than Film-Screen Screening Mammograms? A Partial Explanation

  • Tamara Miner Haygood
  • Jihong Wang
  • Deanna Lane
  • Eva Galvan
  • E. Neely Atkinson
  • Tanya Stephens
  • Gary J. Whitman
Article

DOI: 10.1007/s10278-009-9177-9

Cite this article as:
Haygood, T.M., Wang, J., Lane, D. et al. J Digit Imaging (2010) 23: 170. doi:10.1007/s10278-009-9177-9

Abstract

Digital screening mammograms (DM) take longer to interpret than film-screen screening mammograms (FSM). We evaluated what part of the process takes long in our reading environment. We selected cases from those for which timed readings had been performed as part of a previous study. Readers were timed as they performed various computer manipulations on groups of DM cases and as they moved the alternator and adjusted lighting and manual shutters for FSM cases. Subtracting manipulation time from the original interpretation times yielded estimated times to reach a decision. Manipulation times for DM ranged from a low of 11 s when four-view DM were simply opened and closed in a 4-on-1 hanging protocol before moving on to the next study to 113.8 s when each view of six-view DM were brought up 1-on-1, enlarged to 100% resolution, and panned through. Manipulation times for groups of FSM ranged from 8.3 to 12.1 s. Estimated decision-making times for DM ranged from 128.0 to 202.2 s, while estimated decision-making time for FSM ranged from 60.9 to 146.3 s. Computer manipulation time partially explains the discrepancy in interaction times between DM and FSM. Radiologists also appear to spend more time looking at DM than at FSM before making a decision.

Key words

Full-field digital mammography (FFDM)mammographyimage manipulationimage interpretationscreening mammographyefficiency

Copyright information

© Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tamara Miner Haygood
    • 1
  • Jihong Wang
    • 2
  • Deanna Lane
    • 3
  • Eva Galvan
    • 4
  • E. Neely Atkinson
    • 5
  • Tanya Stephens
    • 3
  • Gary J. Whitman
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Unit 1273The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Imaging Physics, Unit 1352The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Unit 1350The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA
  4. 4.Yale College (Branford)New HavenUSA
  5. 5.Department of Biostatistics and Applied Mathematics, Unit 0237The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA