Auditing Your Breast Imaging Practice: An Evidence-Based Approach

Seminars in Roentgenology

Volumn 42, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 211-217

  Sickles, Edward A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST DISEASE; CALCULATION; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL EXAMINATION; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE PROCESSING; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL AUDIT; MEDICAL PRACTICE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; RADIODIAGNOSIS; STANDARD; UNITED STATES;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL AUDIT; PRACTICE MANAGEMENT, MEDICAL; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, MAMMARY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 34848856050     PISSN: 0037198X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1053/j.ro.2007.06.003     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. D'Orsi C.J., Bassett L.W., Berg W.A., et al. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: ACR BI-RADS-Mammography. (ed 4) (2003), American College of Radiology, Reston, VA 229-251
2. Monsees B.S. The Mammography Quality Standards Act: an overview of the regulations and guidance. Radiol Clin North Am 38 (2000) 759-772
3. Sickles E.A. Quality assurance: how to audit your own mammography practice. Radiol Clin North Am 30 (1992) 265-275
4. Linver M.N., Osuch J.R., and Brenner R.J. The mammography audit: a primer for the Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA). AJR Am J Roentgenol 165 (1995) 19-25
5. Linver M.N. The expanded mammography audit: its value in measuring and improving your performance. Semin Breast Dis 8 (2005) 35-42
6. Clark R., Geller B., Peluso N., et al. Development of a community mammography registry: experience in the breast screening program project. Radiology 196 (1995) 811-815
7. In: Nass S., and Ball J. (Eds). Institute of Medicine report on improving breast imaging quality standards (2005), National Academies Press, Washington, DC 28-30
8. Dee K.E., and Sickles E.A. Medical audit of diagnostic mammography examinations: comparison with screening outcomes obtained concurrently. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176 (2001) 729-733
9. Sickles E.A., Miglioretti D.L., Ballard-Barbash R., et al. Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography. Radiology 235 (2005) 775-790
10. Sohlich R.E., Sickles E.A., Burnside E.S., et al. Interpreting data from audits when screening and diagnostic mammography outcomes are combined. AJR Am J Roentgenol 178 (2002) 681-686
11. Sickles E.A. The usefulness of computers in managing the operation of a mammography screening practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol 155 (1990) 755-761
12. Bassett L.W., Hendrick R.E., Bassford T.L., et al. Quality determinants of mammography (1994), Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD Clinical Practice Guideline No. 13. AHCPR Publication No. 95-0632. October 74-86
13. In: Perry N., Broeders M., deWolf C., et al. (Eds). European guidelines for quality assurance in mammography screening. (ed 3) (2001), Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg
14. Rosenberg R., Yankaskas B.C., Abraham L.A., et al. Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. Radiology 241 (2006) 55-66
15. Gur D., Sumkin J.H., Hardesty L.A., et al. Recall and detection rates in screening mammography. Cancer 100 (2004) 1590-1594
16. Brem R.F. The never-ending controversies of screening mammography: what is the appropriate callback rate for women undergoing screening mammographic examination?. Cancer 100 (2004) 1549-1552
17. Yankaskas B.C., Cleveland R.J., Schell M.J., et al. Association of recall rates with sensitivity and positive predictive values of screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 177 (2001) 54-549
18. Mendelson E.B., Baum J.K., Berg W.A., et al. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: ACR BI-RADS-Ultrasound (2003), American College of Radiology, Reston, VA
19. Ikeda D.M., Hylton N.M., Kuhl C.K., et al. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: ACR BI-RADS-Magnetic Resonance Imaging (2003), American College of Radiology, Reston, VA
20. Hong A.S., Rosen E.L., Soo M.S., et al. BI-RADS for sonography: positive and negative predictive values of sonographic features. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184 (2005) 1260-1265
21. Lazarus E., Mainiero M.B., Schepps B., et al. BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value. Radiology 239 (2006) 385-391
22. Costantini M., Belli P., Lombardi R., et al. Characterization of solid breast masses: use of the sonographic breast imaging reporting and data system lexicon. J Ultrasound Med 25 (2006) 649-659
23. Kwak J.Y., Kim E.K., Park H.L., et al. Application of the breast imaging reporting and data system final assessment system in sonography of palpable breast lesions and reconsideration of the modified triple test. J Ultrasound Med 25 (2006) 1255-1261
24. Tozaki M., Igarashi T., and Fukuda K. Positive and negative predictive values of BI-RADS MRI descriptors for focal breast masses. Magn Reson Med Sci 5 (2006) 7-15
25. Tozaki M., and Fukuda K. High-spatial-resolution MRI of non-masslike breast lesions: interpretation model based on BI-RADS MRI descriptors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187 (2006) 330-337
26. Durfee S.M., Selland D.G., Smith D.N., et al. Sonographic evaluation of clinically palpable breast cancers invisible on mammography. Breast J 6 (2000) 247-251
27. Dennis M.A., Parker S.H., Klaus A.J., et al. Breast biopsy avoidance: the value of normal mammograms and normal sonograms in the setting of a palpable lump. Radiology 219 (2001) 186-191
28. Kopans D.B., and Dennis M.A. Negative mammographic and US findings do not help exclude breast cancer. Radiology 222 (2002) 857-859
29. Sanders L.M., Dennis M.A., Parker S.H., et al. Breast cancer may not be seen sonographically either. Radiology 223 (2002) 581-582
30. Houssami N., Irwig L., Simpson J.M., et al. Sydney Breast Imaging Accuracy Study: comparative sensitivity and specificity of mammography and sonography in young women with symptoms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180 (2003) 935-940
31. Nass S., and Ball J. Institute of Medicine report on improving breast imaging quality standards (2005), National Academies Press, Washington, DC 24-81
32. Jamtvedt G., Young J.M., Kristoffersen D.T., et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes (review). The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2003) CD000259 Issue 3, Art No: CD000259. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.
33. Kan L., Olivotto I.A., Warren Burhenne L.J., et al. Standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening program. Radiology 215 (2000) 563-567
34. Perry N.M. Interpretive skills in the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme: performance indicators and remedial measures. Semin Breast Dis 6 (2003) 108-113
35. Van der Horst F., Hendriks J.H.C.L., Rijken H.J.T.M., et al. Breast cancer screening in the Netherlands: audit and training of radiologists. Semin Breast Dis 6 (2003) 114-122
36. Kossoff M., Brothers L., Cawson J., et al. BreastScreen Australia: how we handle variability in interpretive skills. Semin Breast Dis 6 (2003) 123-127
37. Sickles E.A., Wolverton D.E., and Dee K.E. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. Radiology 224 (2002) 861-869
38. Sickles E.A., Wolverton D.E., and Dee K.E. Generalists versus specialists in mammography (reply to letter to editor). Radiology 227 (2003) 209-211
39. Adcock K.A. Initiative to improve mammogram interpretation. Permanente J 8 2 (2004) 12-18