Breast cancer, mammography, and malpractice litigation: The controversies continue

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 180, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 1229-1237

  Berlin, Leonard ^a,b  

^a RUSH NORTH SHORE MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b RUSH MEDICAL COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CASE REPORT; CLINICAL PRACTICE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALPRACTICE; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASTECTOMY; METASTASIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

EID: 0037405852     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/ajr.180.5.1801229     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Martinez B. As more women seek mammograms, many have to wait months. Wall Street Journal, October 30, 2000:A1, A17
2. Boothby S. Breast cancer update (Chicago Life special advertising supplement). New York Times, October 20, 2002:56-61
3. Physician Insurers Association of America. Breast cancer study, 3rd ed. Rockville, MD: Physicians Insurers Association of America, Spring 2002
4. Zylstra S, D'Orsi CJ, Ricci BA, et al. Defense of breast cancer malpractice claims. Breast Journal 2001;7:76-90
5. Werth B. Damages. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1998:370
6. Berlin L. The missed breast cancer: perceptions and realities. AJR 1999;173:1161-1167
7. Berlin L. Dot size, lead time, fallibility, and impact on survival: continuing controversies in mammography. AJR 2001;176:1123-1130
8. Berlin L. The missed breast cancer redux: time for educating the public about the limitations of mammography? AJR 2001;176:1131-1134
9. Cady B, Michaelson JS. The life-sparing potential of mammographic screening. Cancer 2001;91:1699-1703
10. Horton R. Screening mammography: an overview revisited. (commentary) Lancet 2001;358:1284-1285
11. Duffy SW, Tabar L, Smith RA. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. (letter) Lancet 2001;358:2166
12. Lee JH, Zuckerman D. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. (letter) Lancet 2001;358:2164-2165
13. Vaidya JS. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. (letter) Lancet 2001;358:2166
14. Gotzsche PC. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. (letter) Lancet 2001;358:2167-2168
15. Golde DW. Yes, mammograms make sense. Wall Street Journal, February 26, 2002:A24
16. U. S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations and rationale: screening for breast cancer. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Center for Practice and Technology Assessment. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/breastcancer/brcanwh.htm. Accessed November 19, 2002
17. Neergaard L. U. S. panel backs mammograms. Chicago Sun-Times, February 22, 2002:34
18. Arnold K. Mammography guidelines in the national spot light⋯again. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:411-413
19. Olsen O, Gotzsche PC. Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography. (letter) Lancet 2001;358:1340-1342
20. Nystrom L, Andersson I, Bjurstram N, Frisell J, Nordenskjold B, Rutqvist LE. Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 2002;359:909-919
21. Gelmon K, Olivotto I. The mammography screening debate: time to move on. (commentary) Lancet 2002;359:904-905
22. Crewdson J. Statistics misleading, some doctors say. Chicago Tribune, March 15, 2002:20
23. Brownlee S. Why mammograms are not the answer: search and destroy. New Republic, April 22, 2002:24-27
24. Feig SA. Image quality of screening mammography: effect on clinical outcome. AJR 2002;178:805-807
25. Kolata G. Breast cancer: mammography finds more tumors, then the debates begins. New York Times, April 9, 2002:D5
26. Lee CH. Screening mammography: proven benefit, continued controversy. Radiol Clin North Am 2002;40:395-407
27. Feig SA. Effect of service screening mammography on population mortality from breast carcinoma. (editorial) Cancer 2002;95:451-457
28. Duffy SW, Tabar L, Chen HH, et al. The impact of organized mammography service screening on breast carcinoma mortality in seven Swedish counties. Cancer 2002;95:458-469
29. Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ, Wall C. The Canadian national breast screening study. 1. Breast cancer mortality after 11 to 16 years of follow-up. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:305-312
30. Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BKS, Woolf SH. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U. S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:347-360
31. Kolata G. New mammogram study divided on benefits. New York Times, September 3, 2002:D7
32. Thomas DB, Gaod L, Ray RM, et al. Randomized trial of breast self-examination in Shanghai: final results. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1445-1457
33. Ernster VL, Ballard-Barbash R, Barlow WE, et al. Detection of ductal carcinoma-in-situ in women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1546-1554
34. Jones TL. The worst list: breast cancer now leading source of medical malpractice claims. Texas Med 1996;92:34-36
35. Becker E. Cabinet member has cancer. New York Times, September 19, 2002:A28
36. Agriculture secretary has breast cancer. Chicago Tribune, September 19, 2002:18
37. From cause to cure: early detection pays off. (special advertising supplement) New York Times Magazine, October 14, 2001:52
38. Yelaja T. Breast cancer diagnosis delays "alarming." Toronto Star, August 7, 2001:A1
39. Richard MA, Westcombe AM, Love SB, Littlejohns P, Ramirez AJ. Influence of delay in survival in patients with breast cancer: a systematic review. Lancet 1999;353:1119-1126
40. Sainsbury R, Johnston C, Haward B. Effect on survival of delays in referral of patients with breast-cancer symptoms: a retrospective analysis. Lancet 1999;353:1132-1135
41. Tartter TI, Pace D, Frost M, Bernstein JL. Delay in diagnosis of breast cancer. Ann Surg 1999;229:91-96
42. Goodson WH III, Moore DH II. Causes of physician delay in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Arch Intern Med 2002;162:1343-1348
43. Kopans DB. Chopped liver⋯all over again. (letter) AJR 2002;178:1288
44. Jackson VP. Screening mammography: controversies and headlines. (editorial) Radiology 2002;225:323-326
45. Wells J, Marshall P, Crawley B, Dickersin K. Newspaper reporting of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 2001;135:1029-1037
46. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. News media coverage of screening mammography for women in their 40s and tamoxifen for primary prevention of breast cancer. JAMA 2002;287:3136-3142
47. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Byram SJ, Sox HC, Fischhoff B, Welch G. Women's understanding of the mammography screening debate. Arch Intern Med 2000;160:1434-1440
48. Neiman HL. Many questions, but only one answer. ACR Bulletin 2002;58(3):3
49. An open letter to women and their physicians. (advertisement) New York Times, January 31, 2002:A19
50. Sherman M. Doubts on mammograms do not affect their use. New York Times, June 23, 2002:section 15:2
51. Report to the chairman, Special Committee on Aging, United States Senate. Mammography: capacity generally exists to deliver services. Washington, DC: United States General Accounting Office publication GAO-O2-532, April 2002
52. Sox H. Screening mammography for younger women: back to basics. (editorial) Ann Intern Med 2002;137:361-362
53. Women and mammograms. (editorial) Chicago Tribune, August 6, 2002:14
54. Clancy C. Addressing concerns about medical studies, privacy: what should you tell patients about conflicting research? (ethics forum) Am Med News 2002;45(21):17
55. Berlin L. Mammography: radiologists can't avoid screening controversy. Diagnostic Imaging 2002;24(9):21-23, 55
56. Aschwanden C. Real life decisions about mammograms. Health, October 2002:104-108
57. Angier N. Physician, take a hike. New York Times, May 12, 2002:10 (book section)
58. Sackett DL. The arrogance of preventive medicine. (commentary) CMAJ 2002;167:363-364