|
|
||||||||
Radiology, Vol 190, 209-215, Copyright © 1994 by Radiological Society of North America
ARTICLES |
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:
![]() |
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] |
||||
![]() |
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] |
||||
![]() |
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] |
||||
![]() |
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] |
||||
![]() |
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] |
||||
![]() |
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] |
||||
![]() |
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] |
||||
![]() |
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 |