| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
1 Department of Radiology, Lynn Sage Comprehensive Breast Center, Northwestern
University Feinberg School of Medicine, Galter Pavilion, 13th Floor, 251 E
Huron St., Chicago, IL 60611.
2 Center for Research Design and Statistical Methods, University of Nevada,
Reno, NV.
3 Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
4 Office of Medical Education, Dartmouth University, Hanover, NH.
5 Center for Health Studies, Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, WA.
6 Department of Radiology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA.
OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to accurately describe facility characteristics among community-based screening and diagnostic mammography practices in the United States.
MATERIALS AND METHODS. A survey was developed and applied to community-based facilities providing screening mammography in three geographically distinct locations in the states of Washington, Colorado, and New Hampshire. The facility survey was conducted between December 2001 and September 2002. Characteristics surveyed included facility type, services offered, charges for screening and diagnostic mammography, information systems, and interpretation methods, including the frequency of double interpretation.
RESULTS. Among 45 responding facilities, services offered included screening mammography at all facilities, diagnostic mammography at 34 facilities (76%), breast sonography at 30 (67%), breast MRI at seven (16%), and nuclear medicine breast scanning at seven (16%). Most facilities surveyed were radiology practices in nonhospital settings. Eight facilities (18%) reported performing clinical breast examinations routinely along with screening mammography. Only five screening sites (11%) used computer-aided detection (CAD) and only two (5%) used digital mammography. Nearly two thirds of facilities interpreted screening mammography examinations on-site, whereas 91% of facilities interpreted diagnostic examinations on-site. Only three facilities (7%) interpreted screening examinations on line as they were performed. Approximately half of facilities reported using some type of double interpretation, although the methods of double interpretation and the fraction of cases double-interpreted varied widely across facilities. On average, approximately 15% of screening examinations and 10% of diagnostic examinations were reported as being double-interpreted.
CONCLUSION. Comparison of this survey's results with those collected a decade earlier indicates dramatic changes in the practice of mammography, including a clear distinction between screening and diagnostic mammography, batch interpretation of screening mammograms, and improved quality assurance and medical audit tools. Diffusion of new technologies such as CAD and digital mammography was not widespread. The methods of double-interpretation and the fraction of cases double-interpreted varied widely across study sites.
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. B. Barton and J. G. Elmore Pointing the Way to Informed Medical Decision Making: Test Characteristics of Clinical Breast Examination J Natl Cancer Inst, September 16, 2009; 101(18): 1223 - 1225. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. J. Fenton, P. Green, and L.-M. Baldwin Internal Validation of Procedure Codes on Medicare Claims for Digital Mammograms and Computer-Aided Detection Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., August 1, 2009; 18(8): 2186 - 2189. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. F. Dick III, T. H. Gallagher, R. J. Brenner, J. P. Yi, L. M. Reisch, L. Abraham, D. L. Miglioretti, P. A. Carney, G. R. Cutter, and J. G. Elmore Predictors of Radiologists' Perceived Risk of Malpractice Lawsuits in Breast Imaging Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2009; 192(2): 327 - 333. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. A. Harvey, B. T. Nicholson, and M. A. Cohen Finding Early Invasive Breast Cancers: A Practical Approach Radiology, July 1, 2008; 248(1): 61 - 76. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. N. Trivedi, W. Rakowski, and J. Z. Ayanian Effect of Cost Sharing on Screening Mammography in Medicare Health Plans N. Engl. J. Med., January 24, 2008; 358(4): 375 - 383. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. G. Elmore and R. J. Brenner The More Eyes, the Better to See? From Double to Quadruple Reading of Screening Mammograms J Natl Cancer Inst, August 1, 2007; 99(15): 1141 - 1143. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. J. Fenton, S. H. Taplin, P. A. Carney, L. Abraham, E. A. Sickles, C. D'Orsi, E. A. Berns, G. Cutter, R. E. Hendrick, W. E. Barlow, et al. Influence of Computer-Aided Detection on Performance of Screening Mammography N. Engl. J. Med., April 5, 2007; 356(14): 1399 - 1409. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. M. Ko, M. J. Nicholas, J. B. Mendel, and P. J. Slanetz Prospective assessment of computer-aided detection in interpretation of screening mammography. Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2006; 187(6): 1483 - 1491. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. G. Elmore, K. Armstrong, C. D. Lehman, and S. W. Fletcher Screening for Breast Cancer JAMA, March 9, 2005; 293(10): 1245 - 1256. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
