• D Bernardi, S Ciatto, M Pellegrini, V Anesi, S Burlon, E Cauli, M Depaoli, L Larentis, V Malesani, L Targa, P Baldo, and N Houssami.
• U O Senologia Clinica e Screening Mammografico, Dipartimento di Radiodiagnostica, APSS, Trento, Italy.
• Br J Radiol. 2012 Dec 1;85(1020):e1174-8.

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to supplement the paucity of information available on logistical aspects of the application of three-dimensional (3D) mammography in breast screening.MethodsWe prospectively examined the effect on radiographers' and radiologists' workload of implementing 3D mammography in screening by comparing image acquisition time and screen-reading time for two-dimensional (2D) mammography with that of combined 2D+3D mammography. Radiologists' accuracy was also calculated.ResultsAverage acquisition time (measured from start of first-view breast positioning to compression release at completion of last view) for seven radiographers, based on 20 screening examinations, was longer for 2D+3D (4 min 3 s; range 3 min 53 s-4 min 18 s) than 2D mammography (3 min 13 s; range 3 min 0 s-3 min 26 s; p<0.01). Average radiologists' reading time per screening examination (three radiologists reading case-mix of 100 screens: 10 cancers, 90 controls) was longer for 2D+3D (77 s; range 60-90 s) than for 2D mammography (33 s; range 25-46 s; p<0.01). 2D+3D screen-reading was associated with detection of more cancers and with substantially fewer recalls than 2D mammography alone.ConclusionRelative to standard 2D mammography, combined 2D+3D mammography prolongs image acquisition time and screen-reading time (at initial implementation), and appears to be associated with improved screening accuracy.Advances In KnowledgeThese findings provide relevant information to guide larger trials of integrated 3D mammography (2D+3D) and its potential implementation into screening practice.

21 keywords...

hide…