The regulation of mammography

Seminars in Ultrasound CT and MRI

Volumn 17, Issue 5, 1996, Pages 415-423

  Bassett, Lawrence W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BREAST CANCER; CANCER SCREENING; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HISTORY OF MEDICINE; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION HAZARD; REVIEW; STANDARD; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0029795721     PISSN: 08872171     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0887-2171(96)90028-1     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Egan RL: Experience with mammography in a tumor institution. Evaluation of 1000 cases. Radiology 75:894-900, 1960
2. Scott WG: Mammography and the training program of the American College of Radiology. AJR Am J Roentgenol/ Radium Ther Nucl Med 99:1002-1008, 1967
3. Shapiro S, Venet W, Strax P, et al: Ten- to fourteenyear effect of screening on breast cancer mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst 69:349-355, 1982
4. Baker LH: Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Project: Five-year summary report. Cancer 32:196-225, 1982
5. Bicehouse HJ: Survey of mammographic exposure levels and technique used in Eastern Pennsylvania. Seventh Annual National Cancer Conference on Radiation Control, Hyannis, MA, April 27-May 2, 1975 (DHEW Publication 76-8026)
6. Jans RG, Butler PF, McCrohan JL Jr, et al: Status of film/screen mammography: Results of the BENT study. Radiology 132:197-200, 1979
7. Bailar JC: Mammography: A contrary view. Ann Intern Med 84:77-84, 1976
8. Gold RH, Bassett LW: X-ray mammography: History, controversy and state of the art, in Bassett LW, Gold RH (eds): Mammography, Thermography and Ultrasound in Breast Cancer Detection. New York, NY, Grune & Stratton, 1982, pp 3-11
9. Breslow L, Henderson BE, Massey FJ, et al: Report of NCI ad hoc working group on the gross and net benefits of mammography in mass screening for the detection of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 59:473-478, 1977
10. Upton AC, Beebe GW, Brown JM, et al: Report of NCI ad hoc working group on the risks associated with mammography in mass screening for detection of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 59:579-593, 1977
11. Thomas AB, Ackerman LV, McDivitt RW, et al: Report of NCI ad hoc pathology working group to review the gross and microscopic findings of breast cancer in the HIP study. J Natl Cancer Inst 59:479-493, 1977
12. Bearhs OH, Shapiro S, Smart C, et al: Report of the working group to review the National Cancer Institute-American Cancer Society Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Projects. J Natl Cancer Inst 62:639-698, 1979
13. Bassett LW, Gold RH, Kimme-Smith C: History of the technical development of mammography. Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) Categorical Course in Physics. Oak Brook, IL, RSNA, 1993, pp 9-20
14. Bassett LW, Diamond JJ, Gold RH, McLelland R: Survey of mammography practices. AJR Am J Roentgenol 149:1149-1152, 1987
15. Haus AG, Culinan JE: Screen film processing systems for medical radiography: A historical review. Radiographies 9:1203-1224, 1989
16. Mammography: A user's guide. NCRP Report No. 85. Bethesda, MD, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1986
17. Verbeek ALM, Holland R, Sturmans F, et al: Reduction of breast cancer mortality through mass screening with modern mammography. First results of the Nijmegen project, 1975-1981. Lancet 1:1222-1224, 1984
18. Collette HJA, Rombach JJ, Dey NE, et al: Evaluation of screening for breast cancer in a non-randomized study (the DOM Project) by means of a case-controlled study. Lancet 1:1224-1226, 1984
19. Tabár L, Gad A, Holmberg LH, et al: Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Randomized trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Lancet 1:829-893, 1985
20. Reuter FG: Preliminary report-NEXT 85. National Conference on Radiation Control. Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference on Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD Publication 86-2). Charleston, WV, 1986, pp 111-120
21. Conway BJ, McCrohan JL, Reuter FG, et al: Mammography in the eighties. Radiology 177:335-339, 1990
22. Galkin BM, Feig SA, Muir HD: The technical quality of mammography in centers participating in a regional breast cancer awareness program. Radiographies 8:133-145, 1988
23. McLelland R, Hendrick RE, Zinninger MD, Wilcox PA: The American College of Radiology Mammography Accreditation Program. AJR Am J Roentgenol 157:473-479, 1991
24. Hendrick RE: Quality assurance in mammography: Accreditation, legislation, and compliance with quality assurance standards. Radiol Clin North Am 32:243-255, 1992
25. Hendrick RE, Bassett LW, Dodd GD, et al: Mammography Quality Control (Manuals). Reston, VA, American College of Radiology, 1994
26. American College of Radiology (ACR)/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): Cooperative agreement for activities related to mammography quality assurance. CDC cooperative agreement number U50/ CCU306167, September 1990-January 1995. Reston, VA, 1990-1995
27. Yaffe MJ, Hendrick RE, Feig SA, et al: Recommended specifications for new mammography equipment: Report of the ACR-CDC focus group on mammography equipment. Radiology 197:19-26, 1995
28. American Cancer Society: Survey of physicians' attitudes and practices in early cancer detection. Cancer 35:196-213, 1985
29. Bassett LW, Bunnell DH, Cerny JA, Gold RH: Screening mammography: Referral practices of Los Angeles physicians. AJR Am J Roentgenol 147:689-692, 1986
30. McKinney M, Marconi K: Legislative interventions to increase access to screening mammography. J Community Health 17:333-349, 1992
31. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General: Lessons from inspections of mammography facilities. Final report. Washington, DC, US Government Printing Office (publication no. OEI-05-92-00300), May 1994
32. Fintor L, Alciati MH, Fischer R: Legislative and regulatory mandates for mammography quality assurance. J Pub Health Policy 16:81-107, 1995
33. Cocca SV: Who's monitoring the quality of mammograms? The Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992 could finally provide the answer. Am J Law Med 19:313-344, 1993
34. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Interim final rules on conditions for Medicare coverage of screening mammography. Federal Register 55:53511-53525, December 31, 1990
35. Paquelet JR: Medicare, mammography and the Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992. Radiology 190: 47A-49A, 1994
36. NBC Nightly News, NBC television broadcast, November 14, 1990
37. PrimeTime Live, ABC television broadcast, February 27, 1992 and March 5, 1992
38. US General Accounting Office. Screening mammography: Federal quality standards are needed. Washington, DC, General Accounting Office, publication no. GAO/T-HRD-92-39, 1992
39. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, S. Rep. No 448, 102nd Congress, 2d Sess., 1992
40. Los Angeles Times: Reducing risk of faulty mammograms, October 28, 1991
41. Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992. Public Law 102-539
42. Bassett LW, Hendrick RE, Bassford TL, et al: Quality Determinants of Mammography. Clinical Practice Guideline, N. 13. Rockville, MD, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, AHCPR publication no. 95-0632, October 1994
43. U.S. Food and Drug Administration: Mammography facilities - requirements for accrediting bodies and quality standards and certification requirements; interim rules. Federal Register 58:67558-67252, 1993
44. Hendrick RE, Paquelet JR: Is the Mammography Quality Standards Act worth the cost? Radiology 196:53A-57 A, 1995
45. Farria DM, Bassett LW, Kimme-Smith C, DeBruhl ND: Mammography quality assurance from A to Z. Radiographics 14:371-385, 1994
46. Houn F, Elliott ML, McCrohan JL: The Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992: History and philosophy. Radiol Clin North Am 33:1059-1065, 1995
47. U.S. Food and Drug Administration: Inspection facts and figures. Mammography Matters 2(2): 1, 4, 1995
48. U.S. General Accounting Office: Mammography services: Initial impact of new federal law has been positive. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office, October 1995, publication no. GAO/HEHS-96-17