Seminars in Roentgenology
Volume 42, Issue 4 , Pages 211-217 , October 2007

Auditing Your Breast Imaging Practice: An Evidence-Based Approach

  • Edward A. Sickles, MD

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress reprint requests to Edward A. Sickles, MD, Department of Radiology, Box 1667, University of California San Francisco (UCSF) Medical Center, San Francisco, CA 94143-1667.

References 

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

PII: S0037-198X(07)00037-5

doi: 10.1053/j.ro.2007.06.003

Seminars in Roentgenology
Volume 42, Issue 4 , Pages 211-217 , October 2007

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution