Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
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 Houn, F.
Right arrow Articles by Brown, M. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Houn, F.
Right arrow Articles by Brown, M. L.

Radiology, Vol 190, 209-215, Copyright © 1994 by Radiological Society of North America


ARTICLES

Current practice of screening mammography in the United States: data from the National Survey of Mammography Facilities

F Houn and ML Brown
National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Bethesda, MD 20892.

PURPOSE: To describe the extent to which screening mammography (SCM) has been organized according to the public health concept of low-cost, high-quality, and population-based screening, selected indicators of U.S. mammography facilities were evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from the National Cancer Institute's phase I of the National Survey of Mammography Facilities were analyzed. This data base consists of questionnaire information obtained in 1992 from a 10% random sample of U.S. mammography facilities. RESULTS: Of 1,057 facilities, 634 (60%) distinguished SCM from diagnostic mammography (DXM). In facilities providing SCM (n = 535), 477 (89%) used the mediolateral oblique (MLO) view and/or the craniocaudal (CC) view. While 898 (85%) of all facilities requested clinical follow-up of abnormal mammograms, only 285 (27%) facilities actually received this information. Only 137 (13%) facilities operated at high volume (> or = 15 mammograms per day per machine), and 211 (20%) used batch interpretation. Average cost of a screening mammogram was $89 (range, $10-$225). CONCLUSIONS: While more facilities are distinguishing SCM from DXM and obtain MLO and CC views, SCM does not appear to be organized for high volume and low cost.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
S. Hofvind, P. M. Vacek, J. Skelly, D. L. Weaver, and B. M. Geller
Comparing Screening Mammography for Early Breast Cancer Detection in Vermont and Norway
J Natl Cancer Inst, August 6, 2008; 100(15): 1082 - 1091.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
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]


Home page
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.Home page
J. Reddy, J. P. Bilezikian, S. J. Smith, and L. Mosca
Reduced Bone Mineral Density Is Associated with Breast Arterial Calcification
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., January 1, 2008; 93(1): 208 - 211.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
E. S. Burnside, J. M. Park, J. P. Fine, and G. A. Sisney
The Use of Batch Reading to Improve the Performance of Screening Mammography
Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2005; 185(3): 790 - 796.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
R. E. Hendrick, G. R. Cutter, E. A. Berns, C. Nakano, J. Egger, P. A. Carney, L. Abraham, S. H. Taplin, C. J. D'Orsi, W. Barlow, et al.
Community-Based Mammography Practice: Services, Charges, and Interpretation Methods
Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2005; 184(2): 433 - 438.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JAMAHome page
R. Smith-Bindman, P. W. Chu, D. L. Miglioretti, E. A. Sickles, R. Blanks, R. Ballard-Barbash, J. K. Bobo, N. C. Lee, M. G. Wallis, J. Patnick, et al.
Comparison of Screening Mammography in the United States and the United Kingdom
JAMA, October 22, 2003; 290(16): 2129 - 2137.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am J EpidemiolHome page
S. A. Norman, A. R. Localio, L. Zhou, L. Bernstein, R. J. Coates, E. W. Flagg, P. A. Marchbanks, K. E. Malone, L. K. Weiss, N. C. Lee, et al.
Validation of Self-reported Screening Mammography Histories among Women with and without Breast Cancer
Am. J. Epidemiol., August 1, 2003; 158(3): 264 - 271.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
L. Esserman, H. Cowley, C. Eberle, A. Kirkpatrick, S. Chang, K. Berbaum, and A. Gale
Improving the Accuracy of Mammography: Volume and Outcome Relationships
J Natl Cancer Inst, March 6, 2002; 94(5): 369 - 375.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1994 by the Radiological Society of North America.