Mammography Screening Is Saving Thousands of Lives, but Will It Survive Medical Malpractice?

Radiology

Volumn 230, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 20-24

  Kopans, Daniel B ^a  

^a HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast neoplasms, radiography; Breast radiography, quality assurance; Editorials; Medicolegal problems

Indexed keywords

BREAST CANCER; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL PRACTICE; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; MALPRACTICE; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL LIABILITY; MEDICAL PRACTICE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALPRACTICE; MAMMOGRAPHY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0346848754     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2301030619     Document Type: Review

References (20)

1. Stein C. Doctors will feel a pinch. Boston Globe 2003; Feb 16:D2.
2. Kopans DB. The breast cancer screening controversy: lessons to be learned. J Surg Onc 1998; 67:143-150.
3. Shapiro S. Screening: assessment of current studies. Cancer 1994; 74:231-238.
4. Hendrick RE, Smith RA, Rutledge JH, Smart CR. Benefit of screening mammography in women ages 40-49: a new meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst 1997; 22:87-92.
5. Duffy SW, Tabar L, Smith RA. The mammographic screening trials: commentary on the recent work by Olsen and Gotzsche. CA A Cancer J Clin 2002; 52: 68-71.
6. Tabar LK, Vitak B, Chen HHT, Yen MF, Duffy SW, Smith RA. Beyond randomized controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast cancer mortality. Cancer 2001; 91:1724-1731.
7. Duffy SW, Tabar L, Chen H, et al. The impact of organized mammography service screening on breast carcinoma mortality in seven Swedish counties. Cancer 2002; 95:458-469.
8. Peto R, Boreham J, Clarke M, Davies C, Beral V. UK and USA breast cancer deaths down 25% in year 2000 at ages 20-69 years (letter). Lancet 2000; 20:1822.
9. Miller BA, Feuer EJ, Hankey BF. Trends in invasive breast cancer incidence among American women. J Natl Cancer Inst 1991; 83:678.
10. White E, Lee CY, Kristal AR. Evaluation of increase in breast cancer incidence in relation to mammography use. J Natl Cancer Inst 1990; 82:1546-1552.
11. Kopans DB. Beyond randomized, controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast cancer mortality. Cancer 2002; 94:580-581.
12. Bassett LW, Monsees BS, Smith RA, et al. Survey of radiology residents: breast imaging training and attitudes. Radiology 2003; 227:862-869.
13. Guthrie TH. Breast cancer litigation: an update with practice guidelines. Breast J 1999; 5:335-339.
14. Revesz G, Kundel HL. Psychological studies of detection errors in chest radiology. Radiology 1977; 123:559-562.
15. Brady AP, Stevenson GW, Stevenson I. Colorectal cancer overlooked at barium enema examination and colonoscopy: a continuing perceptual problem. Radiology 1994; 192:373-378.
16. Birdwell RL, Ikeda DM, O'Shaughnessy KF, Sickles EA. Mammographic characteristics of 115 missed cancers later detected with screening mammography and the potential utility of computer-aided detection. Radiology 2001; 219:192-202.
17. Kundel HL, Nodine CF. A visual concept shapes image perception. Radiology 1983; 146:363-368.
18. Birdwell RL, Ikeda DM, O'Shaughnessy KF, Sickles EA. Mammographic characteristics of 115 missed cancers later detected with screening mammography and the potential utility of computer-aided detection. Radiology 2001; 219:192-202.
19. Berlin L. The missed breast cancer redux: time for educating the public about the limitations of mammography? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 176:1131-1134.
20. Diamond BA, Hulka BS, Kerkvliet NI, Tugwell P. Silicone breast implants in relation to connective tissue diseases and immunologic dysfunction: a report by a national science panel to the Honorable Sam C. Pointer, Jr, coordinating judge for the Federal Breast Implant Multidistrict Litigation. Available at: www.fjc.gov/BREIMLIT /SCIENCE/report.htm. Accessed October 8, 2003.