Literature DB >> 2494683

Low-cost screening mammography: report on finances and review of 21,716 consecutive cases.

R E Bird1.   

Abstract

A review of the results of 21,716 mammograms obtained at a low-cost screening center is presented, along with a report on the finances of that center. A total of 142 cancers were discovered, 12 of which gave false-negative results at mammography. The sensitivity was 91.5% and the specificity 90%. The positive predictive value for lesions categorized as "suspicious for malignancy" was 54%. Thirty-one percent of the cancers were "minimal," in other words, in situ or less than 1 cm in diameter and with no tumor-positive lymph nodes. An average of 42 examinations were performed each day at a cost of +28 each. Nonphysician expenses were +16 for each examination, leaving +12 per examination as professional revenue. This project demonstrates that high-quality, low-cost screening mammography can be provided if the volume is adequate and if there is sufficient attention to detail.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2494683     DOI: 10.1148/radiology.171.1.2494683

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  7 in total

1.  Timeliness of follow-up after abnormal screening mammography.

Authors:  K Kerlikowske
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 4.872

2.  Increased patient concern after false-positive mammograms: clinician documentation and subsequent ambulatory visits.

Authors:  M B Barton; S Moore; S Polk; E Shtatland; J G Elmore; S W Fletcher
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Peer review of mammography interpretations in a breast cancer screening program.

Authors:  J Feldman; R A Smith; R Giusti; B DeBuono; J P Fulton; H D Scott
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 9.308

4.  Screening mammograms by community radiologists: variability in false-positive rates.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Diana L Miglioretti; Lisa M Reisch; Mary B Barton; William Kreuter; Cindy L Christiansen; Suzanne W Fletcher
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2002-09-18       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  International variation in screening mammography interpretations in community-based programs.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Connie Y Nakano; Thomas D Koepsell; Laurel M Desnick; Carl J D'Orsi; David F Ransohoff
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2003-09-17       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of breast imaging in the detection of cancer.

Authors:  L E Duijm; G L Guit; J O Zaat; A R Koomen; D Willebrand
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 7.640

7.  Comparison of new and established full-field digital mammography systems in diagnostic performance.

Authors:  Eun Sook Ko; Boo-Kyung Han; Sun Mi Kim; Eun Young Ko; Mijung Jang; Chae Yeon Lyou; Jung Min Chang; Woo Kyung Moon; Rock Bum Kim
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2013-02-22       Impact factor: 3.500

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.