Survey on Current Utilization and Perception of Synthesized Mammography.

IF 2 Q3 ONCOLOGY Journal of Breast Imaging Pub Date : 2024-11-05 DOI:10.1093/jbi/wbae045
Kristen Coffey, Katerina Dodelzon, Vandana Dialani, Bonnie N Joe, Toma S Omofoye, Charlene Thomas, Lars J Grimm
{"title":"Survey on Current Utilization and Perception of Synthesized Mammography.","authors":"Kristen Coffey, Katerina Dodelzon, Vandana Dialani, Bonnie N Joe, Toma S Omofoye, Charlene Thomas, Lars J Grimm","doi":"10.1093/jbi/wbae045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess utilization and perceptions of 2D synthesized mammography (SM) for digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) among practicing U.S. breast radiologists.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An IRB-exempt 23-question anonymized survey was developed by the Society of Breast Imaging (SBI) Patient Care and Delivery Committee and emailed to practicing U.S. radiologist SBI members on October 9, 2023. Questions assessed respondents' demographics, current mammographic screening protocol, confidence interpreting SM for mammographic findings, and perceived advantages and disadvantages of SM.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Response rate was 13.4% (371/2771). Of 371 respondents, 208 were currently screening with DBT/SM (56.1%), 98 with DBT/SM/digital mammography (DM) (26.4%), 61 with DBT/DM (16.4%), and 4 with DM (1.1%). Most respondents felt confident using DBT/SM to evaluate masses (254/319, 79.6%), asymmetries (247/319, 77.4%), and distortions (265/318, 83.3%); however, confidence was mixed for calcifications (agreement 130/320, 40.6%; disagreement 156/320, 48.8%; neutral 34/320, 10.6%). The most frequently cited disadvantage and advantage of SM were reconstruction algorithm false-positive results (199/347, 57.4%) and lower radiation dose (281/346, 81.2%), respectively. Higher confidence and fewer disadvantages were reported by radiologists who had more SM experience, screened with DBT/SM, or exclusively used Hologic vendor (all P <.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>For most survey respondents (56.1%), SM has replaced DM in DBT screening. Radiologists currently screening with DBT/SM or with more SM experience reported greater confidence in SM with fewer perceived disadvantages.</p>","PeriodicalId":43134,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Breast Imaging","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Breast Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jbi/wbae045","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To assess utilization and perceptions of 2D synthesized mammography (SM) for digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) among practicing U.S. breast radiologists.

Methods: An IRB-exempt 23-question anonymized survey was developed by the Society of Breast Imaging (SBI) Patient Care and Delivery Committee and emailed to practicing U.S. radiologist SBI members on October 9, 2023. Questions assessed respondents' demographics, current mammographic screening protocol, confidence interpreting SM for mammographic findings, and perceived advantages and disadvantages of SM.

Results: Response rate was 13.4% (371/2771). Of 371 respondents, 208 were currently screening with DBT/SM (56.1%), 98 with DBT/SM/digital mammography (DM) (26.4%), 61 with DBT/DM (16.4%), and 4 with DM (1.1%). Most respondents felt confident using DBT/SM to evaluate masses (254/319, 79.6%), asymmetries (247/319, 77.4%), and distortions (265/318, 83.3%); however, confidence was mixed for calcifications (agreement 130/320, 40.6%; disagreement 156/320, 48.8%; neutral 34/320, 10.6%). The most frequently cited disadvantage and advantage of SM were reconstruction algorithm false-positive results (199/347, 57.4%) and lower radiation dose (281/346, 81.2%), respectively. Higher confidence and fewer disadvantages were reported by radiologists who had more SM experience, screened with DBT/SM, or exclusively used Hologic vendor (all P <.05).

Conclusion: For most survey respondents (56.1%), SM has replaced DM in DBT screening. Radiologists currently screening with DBT/SM or with more SM experience reported greater confidence in SM with fewer perceived disadvantages.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
关于合成乳腺 X 射线照相术当前使用情况和看法的调查。
目的:评估美国乳腺放射医师对数字乳腺断层合成术(DBT)中二维合成乳腺摄影(SM)的使用情况和看法:评估美国执业乳腺放射医师对数字乳腺断层合成(DBT)中二维合成乳腺摄影(SM)的使用情况和看法:乳腺成像学会 (SBI) 患者护理与服务委员会制定了一份获得 IRB 豁免的 23 个问题的匿名调查,并于 2023 年 10 月 9 日通过电子邮件发送给执业的美国放射科医师 SBI 会员。调查问题包括受访者的人口统计学特征、当前乳腺造影筛查方案、对乳腺造影结果进行 SM 解释的信心以及对 SM 优缺点的看法:结果:回复率为 13.4%(371/2771)。在 371 位受访者中,208 位目前正在使用 DBT/SM 进行筛查(56.1%),98 位使用 DBT/SM/digital mammography (DM) 进行筛查(26.4%),61 位使用 DBT/DM 进行筛查(16.4%),4 位使用 DM 进行筛查(1.1%)。大多数受访者对使用 DBT/SM 评估肿块(254/319,79.6%)、不对称(247/319,77.4%)和变形(265/318,83.3%)有信心;但对钙化的信心则参差不齐(同意 130/320,40.6%;不同意 156/320,48.8%;中立 34/320,10.6%)。最常提及的 SM 缺点和优点分别是重建算法假阳性结果(199/347,57.4%)和较低的辐射剂量(281/346,81.2%)。有更多 SM 经验、使用 DBT/SM 进行筛查或专门使用 Hologic 供应商(均为 P 结论)的放射科医生报告的信心更高,缺点更少:对于大多数调查对象(56.1%)来说,SM 已经取代了 DBT 筛查中的 DM。目前使用 DBT/SM 进行筛查或拥有更多 SM 经验的放射科医生对 SM 更有信心,认为其缺点更少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
20.00%
发文量
81
期刊最新文献
Performance of Abbreviated Breast MRI in High-Risk Patients in a Tertiary Care Academic Medical Center. Developing a Career as a Clinician-Educator in Breast Imaging. Unknown Case: Non-mass Enhancement on Baseline MRI. Developing Financial Acumen as a Breast Imaging Radiologist. Methodological Considerations in Evaluating Breast Cancer Screening Studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1