American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 165, 19-25, Copyright © 1995 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

The mammography audit: a primer for the mammography quality standards act (MQSA)

MN Linver, JR Osuch, RJ Brenner and RA Smith
X-Ray Associates of New Mexico, Albuquerque 87102, USA.

The medical audit of a mammography practice is a recognized method for evaluating mammography and the accuracy of mammographic interpretation [1-4]. As such, portions of the audit will become integral to the quality assurance activities of every mammography practice under the Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA) of 1992, administered by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA Interim Rules, which became effective October 1, 1994, state that "each facility shall establish a system for reviewing outcome data from all mammography performed, including follow-up on the disposition of positive mammograms and correlation of surgical biopsy results with mammogram reports" [5]. It is expected that the proposed final rules, due to be released for public comment in 1995, will require collection of additional data for medical audits (public meeting of the National Mammography Advisory Committee, May 3, 1994). Although most mammography practices are now collecting clinical outcomes data on abnormal mammographic examinations, very few have established an organized and deliberate system of data collection necessary for a more complete mammography audit [6]. A detailed discussion of and recommendations for such an audit were recently published as part of the Quality Determinants of Mammography Guideline by the Agency for Healthcare Policy and Research (AHCPR) [7]. As members and consultants on the multidisciplinary panel that produced the guideline, we offer the following review of the various elements, definitions, and processes of the mammography audit. This is intended as a primer for all radiologists who will be performing some of the same audit activities for the MQSA.
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. Maskarinec, I. Pagano, G. Lurie, L. R. Wilkens, and L. N. Kolonel Mammographic Density and Breast Cancer Risk: The Multiethnic Cohort Study Am. J. Epidemiol., October 15, 2005; 162(8): 743 - 752. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Gur, L. P. Wallace, A. H. Klym, L. A. Hardesty, G. S. Abrams, R. Shah, and J. H. Sumkin Trends in Recall, Biopsy, and Positive Biopsy Rates for Screening Mammography in an Academic Practice Radiology, May 1, 2005; 235(2): 396 - 401. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. G. Elmore, C. Y. Nakano, T. D. Koepsell, L. M. Desnick, C. J. D'Orsi, and D. F. Ransohoff International Variation in Screening Mammography Interpretations in Community-Based Programs J Natl Cancer Inst, September 17, 2003; 95(18): 1384 - 1393. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. C. Harvey, B. Geller, R. G. Oppenheimer, M. Pinet, L. Riddell, and B. Garra Increase in Cancer Detection and Recall Rates with Independent Double Interpretation of Screening Mammography Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2003; 180(5): 1461 - 1467. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. N. KLABUNDE, H. SANCHO-GARNIER, S. TAPLIN, S. THORESEN, N. OHUCHI, and R. BALLARD-BARBASH Quality assurance in follow-up and initial treatment for screening mammography programs in 22 countries Int. J. Qual. Health Care, December 1, 2002; 14(6): 449 - 461. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. G. Elmore, D. L. Miglioretti, L. M. Reisch, M. B. Barton, W. Kreuter, C. L. Christiansen, and S. W. Fletcher Screening Mammograms by Community Radiologists: Variability in False-Positive Rates J Natl Cancer Inst, September 18, 2002; 94(18): 1373 - 1380. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. E. Barlow, C. D. Lehman, Y. Zheng, R. Ballard-Barbash, B. C. Yankaskas, G. R. Cutter, P. A. Carney, B. M. Geller, R. Rosenberg, K. Kerlikowske, et al. Performance of Diagnostic Mammography for Women With Signs or Symptoms of Breast Cancer J Natl Cancer Inst, August 7, 2002; 94(15): 1151 - 1159. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. E. Sohlich, E. A. Sickles, E. S. Burnside, and K. E. Dee Interpreting Data from Audits When Screening and Diagnostic Mammography Outcomes Are Combined Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2002; 178(3): 681 - 686. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. E. Dee and E. A. Sickles Medical Audit of Diagnostic Mammography Examinations: Comparison with Screening Outcomes Obtained Concurrently Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2001; 176(3): 729 - 733. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. P. Poplack, A. N. Tosteson, M. R. Grove, W. A. Wells, and P. A. Carney Mammography in 53,803 Women from the New Hampshire Mammography Network Radiology, December 1, 2000; 217(3): 832 - 840. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				S. H. Taplin, C. M. Rutter, J. G. Elmore, D. Seger, D. White, and R. J. Brenner Accuracy of Screening Mammography Using Single Versus Independent Double Interpretation Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2000; 174(5): 1257 - 1262. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. G. Orel, N. Kay, C. Reynolds, and D. C. Sullivan BI-RADS Categorization As a Predictor of Malignancy Radiology, June 1, 1999; 211(3): 845 - 850. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				J. G. Elmore, M. B. Barton, V. M. Moceri, S. Polk, P. J. Arena, and S. W. Fletcher Ten-Year Risk of False Positive Screening Mammograms and Clinical Breast Examinations N. Engl. J. Med., April 16, 1998; 338(16): 1089 - 1096. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. H. Taplin, L. E. Ichikawa, K. Kerlikowske, V. L. Ernster, R. D. Rosenberg, B. C. Yankaskas, P. A. Carney, B. M. Geller, N. Urban, M. B. Dignan, et al. Concordance of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Assessments and Management Recommendations in Screening Mammography Radiology, February 1, 2002; 222(2): 529 - 535. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]