Mammogram energy use: Metering to map optimization strategies.
Abstract
e12714 Background: Mammography is a critical component of screening and diagnosis in breastcancer. A key component of cancer prevention also involves mitigation and avoidance of environmental risk factors. Radiology is an energy-intensive field, with opportunities to impact multifactorial patient wellbeing – providing necessary cancer screening and diagnosis while optimizing clinical operations to reduce energy consumption and minimize associated environmental risks. Methods: We conducted prospective metering of two digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT)machines at a large academic medical center. Unit 1 was metered for 16 days, while Unit 2 was metered for 24 days, from April–May 2025. Scanning volume during the study period was 7-10 scans/device/weekday, with no scans on weekends. Power was measured in kilowatts (kW), and energy was calculated as kilowatt-hours (kWh). DBT units operated in four power modes – ready-to-scan, scan, low-power, and off – defined by EnergyStar and COCIR standards. Usingthe time and power associated with each mode, we calculated the contribution of each mode to total DBT energy consumption. Results: While scan mode consumed the most energy and power in both DBT units, the greatest share of energy consumption for both units over the study period came from ready-to-scan mode (68% Unit 1, 45% Unit 2). The biggest discrepancy between time spent across modes for the two units was low-power mode, with Unit 2 spending 66% of time in low-power (24.61 kWh) and Unit 1 spending 18% (1.58 kWh). Extrapolating to annual energy consumption, Units 1 and 2 were estimated to consume 892.88 and 1,641.97 kWh, respectively (Table 1). Conclusions: These findings reveal opportunities for actionable changes at the oncology practice level to reduce non-productive mammography energy consumption. Downstream, this may both reduce the health impacts of energy-associated pollutant emissions and liberate financial resources for improving patient care. Energy optimization strategies could include reducing turnover time between patients, decreasing duration in energy-intensive ready-to-scan mode, andpowering off machines overnight and on weekends. Future quality improvement studies should evaluate the environmental and cost savings of such interventions. DBT Unit Mode Power (mean kW +/- SD) Power (median kW) Duration (minutes (% of total)) Energy Consumption (kWh (% of total)) Annual Projected Energy Consumption (kWh) Total (Unit 1) - - 23,040 (100%) 40.8 (100%) 892.9 Scan 0.57 ± 0.12 0.58 1190 (5%) 11.4 (28%) 250.9 Ready-to-Scan 0.30 ± 0.013 0.3 5369 (23%) 26.9 (68%) 606.5 Low-Power 0.023 ± 0.057 0.0059 4214 (18%) 1.6 (4%) 35.6 Total (Unit 2) - - 34,560 (100%) 91.3 (100%) 1,642.0 Scan 0.57 ± 0.099 0.5 2005 (6%) 18.5 (18%) 300.2 Ready-to-Scan 0.42 ± 0.046 0.4 6951 (20%) 48.2 (45%) 743.2 Low-Power 0.10 ± 0.018 0.1 22724 (66%) 24.6 (36%) 598.6
Article Details
Journal Info
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Authors (8)
Genevieve S. Silva
University of California San Francisco Department of Radiation Oncology, San Francisco, CA
Caroline Walsh
University of California, Los Angeles Department of Radiology, Los Angeles, CA
Bailee Lichter
Emory Diagnostic Radiology Residency Program, Atlanta, GA
Jacquelyn Tompkins
Mazzetti, Denver, CO
David Munger
Department of Radiation Oncology & Applied Sciences, The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Dartmouth Cancer Center, Lebanon, NH
Heather Greenwood
University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
Sean Woolen
University of California San Francisco Department of Radiology, San Francisco, CA
Katie Lichter
Department of Radiation Oncology & Applied Sciences, The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Dartmouth Cancer Center, Lebanon, NH