United States radiological health activities: Inspection results of mammography facilities

Biomedical Imaging and Intervention Journal

Volumn 3, Issue 2, 2007, Pages

  Spelic, David C ^a   Kaczmarek, R V ^a   Hilohi, M ^b   Belella, S ^a  

^a CENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND RESEARCH   (United States)

^b SFA INC   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FILM; HEALTH CARE FACILITY; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; MEDICAL AUDIT; PHANTOM; QUALITY CONTROL; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION EXPOSURE; SCORING SYSTEM; SCREENING; STANDARD; UNITED STATES; WORKLOAD; X RAY;

EID: 57049123860     PISSN: None     EISSN: 18235530     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2349/biij.3.2.e35     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Jans RG, Butler PF, McCrohan JL Jr et al. The status of film/ screen mammography. Results of the BENT study. Radiology 1979; 132(1):197-200.
2. Conway BJ, Suleiman OH, Rueter FG et al. National survey of mammographic facilities in 1985, 1988, and 1992. Radiology 1994; 191(2):323-30.
3. Suleiman OH, Spelic DC, McCrohan JL et al. Mammography in the 1990s: the United States and Canada. Radiology 1999; 210(2):345-51.
4. Equipment. in: National Council of Radiation and Measurements. A Guide to Mammography and Other Breast Imaging Procedures. 2004. (NCRP Report; 149).
5. Gennaro G, di Maggio C. Dose comparison between screen/film and full-field digital mammography. Eur Radiol 2006; 16(11):2559-66.
6. Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Cutter GR. Performance comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography in clinical practice. Med Phys 2002; 29(5):830-4.
7. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005; 353(17):1773-83.
8. Gotzsche PC, Olsen O. Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable? Lancet 2000; 355:129-34.
9. Feig SA. Adverse effects of screening mammography. Radiol Clin North Am 2004; 42(5):807-19, v.
10. United States Department of Health and Human Services. [Press Release]. 2002.
11. Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK et al. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005; 353(17):1784-92.
12. Wu X, Barnes GT, Tucker DM. Spectral dependence of glandular tissue dose in screen-film mammography. Radiology 1991; 179(1):143-8.
13. Suleiman OH, Rueter FG, Antonsen RG et al. The sensitometric technique for the evaluation of processing (STEP). Radiat Prot Dosimetry 1993; 49:105-6.
14. West MS, Spelic DC. Using light sensitometry to evaluate mammography film performance. Med Phys 2000; 27(5):854-60.
15. Haus AG, Yaffe MJ, Feig SA et al. Relationship between phantom failure rates and radiation dose in mammography accreditation. Med Phys 2001; 28(11):2297-301.
16. The American College of Radiology. Mammography Quality Control Manual. American College of Radiology, 1999.
17. Young KC, Burch A, Oduko JM. Radiation doses received in the UK Breast Screening Programme in 2001 and 2002. Br J Radiol 2005; 78(927):207-18.
18. Zoetelief J, Veldkamp WJ, Thijssen MA et al. Glandularity and mean glandular dose determined for individual women at four regional breast cancer screening units in the Netherlands. Phys Med Biol 2006; 51(7):1807-17.
19. Jamal N, Ng KH, McLean D. A study of mean glandular dose during diagnostic mammography in Malaysia and some of the factors affecting it. Br J Radiol 2003; 76(904):238-45.
20. Toledano A, Pisano E, Yaffe M et al. Relationship of Diagnostic Accuracies of Film-Screen and Digital Mammography to Breast Density in the DMIST Conducted by the American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN). in: Breast Imaging (Digital Mammography: The ACRIN DMIST Results). SSA15. (92nd Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA).