Michael J.Plaza - Department of Radiology, Diagnostic Center for Women, Miami, Florida, USA
Denzel Cole - Department of Radiology, Larkin Community Hospital, Miami, Florida, USA
Marcos A.Sanchez-Gonzalez - Department of Radiology, Larkin Community Hospital, Miami, Florida, USA
Christopher J.Start - Department of Radiology, Kaiser Permanente Downey Medical Center, Miami, Florida, USA

Background: To optimize screening abbreviated breast MRI (ABMR)operations, patient throughput times of ABMR were compared to breast ultrasound(US) and full protocol breast MRI (FPMR).Methods: Patient throughput times (mean ± standard error) and itssubcomponents were analyzed for ۹۵ ABMRs, ۹۰ breast US exams, and ۵۰FPMRs. Total patient throughput was measured from registration time to the timeof the last acquired image. Actual exam time was time difference between the firstand last acquired images and pre-examination time was the calculated differencebetween throughput and actual exam times.Results: ABMR total patient throughput time was shorter than FPMR (۵۵.۷ ±۱.۷ vs. ۶۳.۱ ± ۲.۰ min; difference, ۷.۴ min, ۱۳%; p<۰.۰۰۱), but longer than breastUS (۳۹.۱ ± ۱.۳ min; difference, ۱۶.۶ min, ۳۰%; p<۰.۰۰۱). ABMR had shorteractual scan times than FPMR (۱۳.۴ ± ۰.۱۴ vs. ۱۸.۶ ± ۰.۲۵ min; p<۰.۰۰۱), but longerthan US (۹.۶ ± ۰.۴۶ minutes; p<۰.۰۰۱). There was no difference in the preexaminationtimes between ABMR and FPMR (۴۲.۳ ± ۱.۷ vs. ۴۴.۶ ± ۱.۹ min; p =۰.۳۵۷); pre-examination times were longer for both MR exam types compared toUS (۲۹.۵ ± ۱.۳ minutes; p<۰.۰۰۱).Conclusion: ABMR patient throughput times are faster than FPMR, but thesegains are limited as they have no impact on pre-examination activities whichcomprise the lengthiest components of the patient flow process. US patient flowcurrently remains faster than ABMR; however, comparable ABMR times could beachieved by further omitting certain sequences and optimizing pre-examinationprocesses.

Breast MRI, patient flow, patient throughput, breast cancer screening, breast ultrasound