Hendrick R Edward, Cutter Gary R, Berns Eric A, Nakano Connie, Egger Joseph, Carney Patricia A, Abraham Linn, Taplin Stephen H, D'Orsi Carl J, Barlow William, Elmore Joann G
Department of Radiology, Lynn Sage Comprehensive Breast Center, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Galter Pavilion, 13th Floor, 251 E Huron St., Chicago, IL 60611, USA.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005 Feb;184(2):433-8. doi: 10.2214/ajr.184.2.01840433.
The purpose of our study was to accurately describe facility characteristics among community-based screening and diagnostic mammography practices in the United States.
A survey was developed and applied to community-based facilities providing screening mammography in three geographically distinct locations in the states of Washington, Colorado, and New Hampshire. The facility survey was conducted between December 2001 and September 2002. Characteristics surveyed included facility type, services offered, charges for screening and diagnostic mammography, information systems, and interpretation methods, including the frequency of double interpretation.
Among 45 responding facilities, services offered included screening mammography at all facilities, diagnostic mammography at 34 facilities (76%), breast sonography at 30 (67%), breast MRI at seven (16%), and nuclear medicine breast scanning at seven (16%). Most facilities surveyed were radiology practices in nonhospital settings. Eight facilities (18%) reported performing clinical breast examinations routinely along with screening mammography. Only five screening sites (11%) used computer-aided detection (CAD) and only two (5%) used digital mammography. Nearly two thirds of facilities interpreted screening mammography examinations on-site, whereas 91% of facilities interpreted diagnostic examinations on-site. Only three facilities (7%) interpreted screening examinations on line as they were performed. Approximately half of facilities reported using some type of double interpretation, although the methods of double interpretation and the fraction of cases double-interpreted varied widely across facilities. On average, approximately 15% of screening examinations and 10% of diagnostic examinations were reported as being double-interpreted.
Comparison of this survey's results with those collected a decade earlier indicates dramatic changes in the practice of mammography, including a clear distinction between screening and diagnostic mammography, batch interpretation of screening mammograms, and improved quality assurance and medical audit tools. Diffusion of new technologies such as CAD and digital mammography was not widespread. The methods of double-interpretation and the fraction of cases double-interpreted varied widely across study sites.
我们研究的目的是准确描述美国社区乳腺筛查与诊断性乳腺钼靶检查机构的特征。
我们制定了一项调查,并将其应用于华盛顿州、科罗拉多州和新罕布什尔州三个地理位置不同的社区乳腺筛查机构。机构调查于2001年12月至2002年9月进行。调查的特征包括机构类型、提供的服务、筛查与诊断性乳腺钼靶检查的收费、信息系统以及解读方法,包括双人解读的频率。
在45家回复的机构中,提供的服务包括所有机构均提供乳腺筛查钼靶检查,34家机构(76%)提供诊断性乳腺钼靶检查,30家(67%)提供乳腺超声检查,7家(16%)提供乳腺MRI检查,7家(16%)提供核医学乳腺扫描。大多数接受调查的机构是非医院环境下的放射科。8家机构(18%)报告在进行乳腺筛查钼靶检查时常规开展临床乳腺检查。只有5个筛查点(11%)使用计算机辅助检测(CAD),只有2家(5%)使用数字化乳腺钼靶检查。近三分之二的机构在现场解读乳腺筛查钼靶检查结果,而91%的机构在现场解读诊断性检查结果。只有3家机构(7%)在进行筛查检查时在线解读。约一半的机构报告使用某种形式的双人解读,不过双人解读的方法以及双人解读病例的比例在各机构间差异很大。平均而言,约15%的筛查检查和10%的诊断检查被报告为进行了双人解读。
将本次调查结果与十年前所收集的结果进行比较表明,乳腺钼靶检查的实践发生了巨大变化,包括筛查与诊断性乳腺钼靶检查的明确区分、筛查乳腺钼靶检查的批量解读以及质量保证和医疗审计工具的改进。CAD和数字化乳腺钼靶检查等新技术的普及并不广泛。双人解读的方法以及双人解读病例的比例在各研究地点差异很大。