Community-based mammography practice: services, charges, and interpretation methods
- PMID: 15671359
- PMCID: PMC3142997
- DOI: 10.2214/ajr.184.2.01840433
Community-based mammography practice: services, charges, and interpretation methods
Abstract
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.
Figures



Similar articles
-
Quality assurance audits of community screening mammography practices: availability of active follow-up for data collection and outcome assessment.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994 Oct;163(4):825-9. doi: 10.2214/ajr.163.4.8092017. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994. PMID: 8092017
-
Screening mammography in community practice: positive predictive value of abnormal findings and yield of follow-up diagnostic procedures.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995 Dec;165(6):1373-7. doi: 10.2214/ajr.165.6.7484568. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995. PMID: 7484568
-
U.S. screening mammography services with mobile units: results from the National Survey of Mammography Facilities.Radiology. 1995 May;195(2):529-32. doi: 10.1148/radiology.195.2.7724778. Radiology. 1995. PMID: 7724778
-
Low-cost mass screening as a means of reducing overall mortality from breast cancer.Recent Results Cancer Res. 1990;119:53-9. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-84065-4_7. Recent Results Cancer Res. 1990. PMID: 2236862 Review.
-
Understanding the Mammography Audit.Radiol Clin North Am. 2021 Jan;59(1):41-55. doi: 10.1016/j.rcl.2020.09.009. Epub 2020 Nov 2. Radiol Clin North Am. 2021. PMID: 33222999 Review.
Cited by
-
Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography.N Engl J Med. 2007 Apr 5;356(14):1399-409. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa066099. N Engl J Med. 2007. PMID: 17409321 Free PMC article.
-
Rapid increase in breast magnetic resonance imaging use: trends from 2000 to 2011.JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Jan;174(1):114-21. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.11958. JAMA Intern Med. 2014. PMID: 24247482 Free PMC article.
-
Screening for breast cancer.JAMA. 2005 Mar 9;293(10):1245-56. doi: 10.1001/jama.293.10.1245. JAMA. 2005. PMID: 15755947 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Pointing the way to informed medical decision making: test characteristics of clinical breast examination.J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 Sep 16;101(18):1223-5. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djp279. Epub 2009 Aug 31. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009. PMID: 19720968 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Predictors of radiologists' perceived risk of malpractice lawsuits in breast imaging.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009 Feb;192(2):327-33. doi: 10.2214/AJR.07.3346. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009. PMID: 19155390 Free PMC article.
References
-
- International Agency for Research on Cancer. Breast cancer screening. Vol. 7. Lyon, France: IARC Press; 2002. Handbooks of cancer prevention.
-
-
The Mammography Quality Standards Act (Public L No. 102–539), October 27, 1992
-
-
- Ballard-Barbash R, Taplin SH, Yankaskas BC, et al. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database. AJR. 1997;169:1001–1008. - PubMed
-
- Houn F, Brown ML. Current practice of screening mammography in the United States: data from the National Survey of Mammography Facilities. Radiology. 1994;190:209–215. - PubMed
-
- Thurfjell EL, Lernevall K, Taube AAS. Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program. Radiology. 1994;191:241–244. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous