AJR ARRS: Your Link to CME
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text
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 Sumkin, J. H.
Right arrow Articles by Gur, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sumkin, J. H.
Right arrow Articles by Gur, D.
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?
AJR 2003; 180:253-256
© American Roentgen Ray Society


Prescreening Mammography by Technologists: A Preliminary Assessment

Jules H. Sumkin1, Herta M. Klaman, Marianne Graham, Theresa Ruskauff, Rose C. Gennari, Jill L. King, Amy H. Klym, Marie A. Ganott and David Gur

1 All authors: Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh and Magee-Womens Hospital, 300 Halket St., Pittsburgh, PA 15213.

OBJECTIVE. We assessed the ability of technologists to accurately classify screening mammograms as either showing negative findings or requiring follow-up.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS. In a prospective study, 33 technologists at a central facility and five satellite breast imaging facilities recorded whether mammograms obtained during 3019 examinations showed negative findings or findings that indicated that additional procedures were required. The technologists were not specifically trained for the experiment. The technologists' interpretations were compared with radiologists' interpretations.

RESULTS. Technologists and radiologists agreed in 82% of the cases (77% negative findings and 5% requiring follow-up). Of the 175 cases recommended for follow-up by only the radiologists, 17 were ultimately biopsied and two were found to be malignant.

CONCLUSION. Even without undergoing additional training, technologists can perform at reasonable levels of accuracy in classifying screening mammograms. The possibility of using technologists to group cases after the technologists have undergone training is an interesting concept that should be explored further.


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
JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
L. E. M. Duijm, J. H. Groenewoud, J. Fracheboud, and H. J. de Koning
Additional Double Reading of Screening Mammograms by Radiologic Technologists: Impact on Screening Performance Parameters
J Natl Cancer Inst, August 1, 2007; 99(15): 1162 - 1170.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2003 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.