T E Wilson1, V K Nijhawan, M A Helvie. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor 48109-0326, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the usefulness and cost of acquiring and comparing mammograms previously obtained at a different facility with normal mammograms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Comparison mammographic reports obtained within 52 months in 1,297 consecutive women (aged 33-82 years; mean age, 53 years) were retrospectively reviewed. Mammograms in which a normal interpretation was altered after comparison were reviewed. The clinical importance and the cost of obtaining previous mammograms were determined. RESULTS: Initially, interpretation was normal in 756 (58%) comparison mammograms and abnormal in 541 (42%). Of the 756 normal mammograms, 197 (26%) were not compared with previous mammograms. Of the remaining 559, 551 (98%) had no change. In eight of the 559 (1%), the original interpretation was altered. Seven of these eight mammograms were available for review: In one, a developing density was detected; in three, differences were attributable to technique; and in three, radiologists had different interpretations. No malignancies were detected. The average labor and postage cost was $21.49. CONCLUSION: Considering the cost and low diagnostic yield, obtaining previous mammograms is of limited usefulness.
PURPOSE: To determine the usefulness and cost of acquiring and comparing mammograms previously obtained at a different facility with normal mammograms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Comparison mammographic reports obtained within 52 months in 1,297 consecutive women (aged 33-82 years; mean age, 53 years) were retrospectively reviewed. Mammograms in which a normal interpretation was altered after comparison were reviewed. The clinical importance and the cost of obtaining previous mammograms were determined. RESULTS: Initially, interpretation was normal in 756 (58%) comparison mammograms and abnormal in 541 (42%). Of the 756 normal mammograms, 197 (26%) were not compared with previous mammograms. Of the remaining 559, 551 (98%) had no change. In eight of the 559 (1%), the original interpretation was altered. Seven of these eight mammograms were available for review: In one, a developing density was detected; in three, differences were attributable to technique; and in three, radiologists had different interpretations. No malignancies were detected. The average labor and postage cost was $21.49. CONCLUSION: Considering the cost and low diagnostic yield, obtaining previous mammograms is of limited usefulness.
Authors: Paras Lakhani; Elliot D Menschik; Alberto F Goldszal; Joseph P Murray; Mark G Weiner; Curtis P Langlotz Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Bonnie C Yankaskas; Ryan C May; Jeanine Matuszewski; J Michael Bowling; Molly P Jarman; Bruce F Schroeder Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-10-26 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jessica H Hayward; Kimberly M Ray; Dorota J Wisner; John Kornak; Weiwen Lin; Bonnie N Joe; Edward A Sickles Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2016-07-06 Impact factor: 3.959