AJR Get Involved! Join ARRS Today
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bassett, L. W.
Right arrow Articles by Hirbawi, I.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bassett, L. W.
Right arrow Articles by Hirbawi, I.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Hotlight (NEW!)
Right arrow
What's Hotlight?

American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 163, 1083-1086, Copyright © 1994 by American Roentgen Ray Society


ARTICLES

Obtaining previous mammograms for comparison: usefulness and costs

LW Bassett, B Shayestehfar and I Hirbawi
Iris Cantor Center for Breast Imaging, Department of Radiological Sciences, UCLA School of Medicine, 90024-6952.

OBJECTIVE. We undertook a study to evaluate the usefulness and the cost of our policy of obtaining all previous mammograms, whether done at our facility or another, for purposes of comparison with current mammographic examinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS. We reviewed 1432 randomly selected screening mammography examinations from the year 1992. Information collected included whether there were previous mammograms, whether they could be obtained, the clinical impact of the comparisons, and the time and cost of obtaining the earlier mammograms. RESULTS. Of the 1432 cases, 1245 women (87%) had had previous mammograms: 971 (78%) of these were done at our institution (all but 12 were available for comparison) or were brought in by the woman at the time of her scheduled examination; 274 (22%) were done elsewhere and were not available at the time of the examination. Of the latter 274 examinations, 140 (51%) could not be obtained despite vigorous efforts. Clinical management was affected as a result of comparison in 35 of the 1093 cases in which previous mammograms were obtained: seven biopsies were performed (four benign, two malignant, one pending), 10 imaging workups or follow-ups were initiated, two biopsies were avoided, and 16 imaging workups or short-term follow-ups were avoided. The two cancers that were detected as a result of obtaining previous films included one manifested by an increase in calcifications and one by a neodensity that was recognized in retrospect in an otherwise normal mammogram. The average labor and postage cost for each outside mammogram requested and received was $12.52; if the film was requested but not received, the average labor cost was $5.33. CONCLUSION. When interpreting mammograms, a comparison with previous examinations has a positive impact on clinical management and cancer detection in a limited number of cases. The overall costs and time involved in obtaining previous mammograms from other facilities are substantial. The previous mammograms cannot be obtained in all cases, and in our study only 50% of the mammograms done at other facilities could be obtained. These issues need additional consideration before binding policies are established.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
RadiologyHome page
L. Hadjiiski, B. Sahiner, M. A. Helvie, H.-P. Chan, M. A. Roubidoux, C. Paramagul, C. Blane, N. Petrick, J. Bailey, K. Klein, et al.
Breast Masses: Computer-aided Diagnosis with Serial Mammograms
Radiology, August 1, 2006; 240(2): 343 - 356.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
S. V. Ghate, M. S. Soo, J. A. Baker, R. Walsh, E. I. Gimenez, and E. L. Rosen
Comparison of Recall and Cancer Detection Rates for Immediate versus Batch Interpretation of Screening Mammograms
Radiology, April 1, 2005; 235(1): 31 - 35.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
L. Hadjiiski, H.-P. Chan, B. Sahiner, M. A. Helvie, M. A. Roubidoux, C. Blane, C. Paramagul, N. Petrick, J. Bailey, K. Klein, et al.
Improvement in Radiologists' Characterization of Malignant and Benign Breast Masses on Serial Mammograms with Computer-aided Diagnosis: An ROC Study
Radiology, October 1, 2004; 233(1): 255 - 265.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
J. H. Sumkin, B. L. Holbert, J. S. Herrmann, C. A. Hakim, M. A. Ganott, W. R. Poller, R. Shah, L. A. Hardesty, and D. Gur
Optimal Reference Mammography: A Comparison of Mammograms Obtained 1 and 2 Years Before the Present Examination
Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2003; 180(2): 343 - 346.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1994 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.