The final 30 minutes of the Society for Computer Applications in Radiology’s marathon five-hour digital breast imaging forum was allotted to a manufacturers’ panel discussion. Representatives from more than 15 manufacturers fielded questions from the audience.
The final 30 minutes of the Society for Computer Applications in Radiology's marathon five-hour digital breast imaging forum was allotted to a manufacturers' panel discussion. Representatives from more than 15 manufacturers fielded questions from the audience.
None of the vendor reps wore hard hats, although the instinct to duck and cover may have been prominent, particularly during the barrage of questions from the audience of digital mammography readers. Users expressed concern that the entire field of digital mammography may not survive if the technology does not improve rapidly.
One audience member disputed a statement made earlier in the session that there are 1328 issues in digital mammography. There are actually only four or five, he said, among them window leveling and integrity of images.
"Those are the readers' issues," he said. "I think [manufacturers] are copping out. Is this too hard?"
Another user responded to the possibility that developing mammography technologies could further inhibit workflow.
"I can't be made to work slower. We're already short-handed. We're not given the staff to keep up with reading demands. We're denied residents and fellows. I read 90 studies a day as it is. I would be there all night if workflow slows any further. We need a solution and we need it now," he said.
An IHE-like mammography-specific miniconnectathon was mentioned as one means to inspire more cooperation in vendors. The suggestion provoked a round of applause in the room.
Moderator J. Anthony Siebert, Ph.D., a professor of radiology at the University of California, Davis, concluded the session by affirming the absolute need to streamline the entire digital mammography workflow process. Reducing the amount of manipulation of images required to improve efficiency of interpretation would be one way to achieve that goal, he said.
"This is essential if digital mammography is going to be accepted," Siebert said.
Other issues include better control of hanging protocols to avoid wasting time and ensuring that the initial image the system presents is one that the radiologist can do most of the work with, he said.
The ability to digitize and present priors on the digital workstation would eliminate the problem of a viewbox casting light on a monitor, Siebert said.
"And, of course, all radiologists reading mammograms should wear dark clothing," he said.
For more stories from the Society for Computer Applications in Radiology meeting, go to the SCAR Webcast.
Stay at the forefront of radiology with the Diagnostic Imaging newsletter, delivering the latest news, clinical insights, and imaging advancements for today’s radiologists.
Mammography Study: AI Facilitates Greater Accuracy and Longer Fixation Time on Suspicious Areas
July 8th 2025While noting no differences in sensitivity, specificity or reading time with adjunctive AI for mammography screening, the authors of a new study noted a 4 percent higher AUC and increased fixation time on lesion regions.
Can Contrast-Enhanced Mammography be a Viable Screening Alternative to Breast MRI?
June 17th 2025While the addition of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) to digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) led to over a 13 percent increase in false positive cases, researchers also noted over double the cancer yield per 1,000 women in comparison to DBT alone.
Contrast-Enhanced Mammography and High-Concentration ICM Dosing: What a New Study Reveals
June 16th 2025New research showed a 96 to 97 percent sensitivity for contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) with an increased iodine delivery rate facilitating robust contrast enhancement for women with aggressive breast cancer.