BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

First published online June 22, 2009
British Journal of Radiology (2010) 83, 122-128
© 2010 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/bjr/96554696

This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Goldstraw, E J
Right arrow Articles by Allen, S
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Goldstraw, E J
Right arrow Articles by Allen, S

The effect of Premium View post-processing software on digital mammographic reporting

E J Goldstraw, MRCP, FRCR I Castellano, PhD S Ashley, PhD and S Allen, MRCS, FRCR

Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Downs Road, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5PT, UK

Correspondence: Emma Goldstraw, Homerton University Hospital NHS Trust, Homerton Row, London E9 6SR, UK. E-mail: egoldstraw{at}gmail.com

The aim of this study was to identify the effect of the installation of Premium View post-processing software on our mammographic reporting performance, in particular the effects on our recall rate, biopsy rate and cancer detection rate. The case notes and imaging of all patients discussed at the weekly indeterminate imaging multidisciplinary team meeting were reviewed retrospectively before, immediately after and at a delayed interval following the installation of Premium View post-processing software. Factors recorded included the mammographic abnormality, further investigations and final histology. The indeterminate mammogram rate increased significantly from a baseline of 5.7% (before Premium View) to 8.7% in the time period immediately after the installation of Premium View (p _ 0.002). The stereotactic biopsy rate also increased from 0.8% to 2.4% (p _ 0.001), with a significant increase in the overall cancer detection rate from 3.4% to 4.4% (p _ 0.02). In the follow-up period several months after the installation of Premium View, the indeterminate mammogram rate returned to a level similar to that before Premium View (6%; p _ 0.7). The stereotactic biopsy rate remained significantly higher at 1.6% (p _ 0.07), as did the overall cancer detection rate of 5.0% (p _ 0.003). In conclusion, the use of Premium View may lead to higher cancer detection rates, at the expense of an initial increase in recall rate. Although prospective studies are suggested, this result is of interest in light of the proposed installation of digital mammography across the NHS Breast Screening Programme.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 2010 by the British Institute of Radiology.