Wednesday, 28 April 2010

More Mammography Muddle: Emotions, Politics, Science, Costs, and Polarization

More Mammography Muddle: Emotions, Politics, Science, Costs, and Polarization
Leonard Berlin and Ferris M. Hall
Radiology 2010;255 311-316

Link to Journal

Controversies regarding medical screening and many other cost-benefit health care decisions are increasingly societal issues rather than purely scientific ones, and therefore, open-minded public discussion and education should be welcome

Identifying Minimally Acceptable Interpretive Performance Criteria for Screening Mammography

Identifying Minimally Acceptable Interpretive Performance Criteria for Screening Mammography
Patricia A. Carney, Edward A. Sickles, Barbara S. Monsees, Lawrence W. Bassett, R. James Brenner, Stephen A. Feig, Robert A. Smith, Robert D. Rosenberg, T. Andrew Bogart, Sally Browning, Jane W. Barry, Mary M. Kelly, Khai A. Tran, and Diana L. Miglioretti
Radiology 2010;255 354-361

Link to Journal

Our study contributes important information to existing literature in that we identified six performance cut points important for interpretation of screening mammograms and found that most of the cut points we identified would affect between 20% and 49% of interpreting physicians, who might benefit from additional training to improve their mammogram interpretation skills

NB PERFORMS needed in the USA

Mammographic Appearance Following Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation by Using MammoSite Brachytherapy

Mammographic Appearance Following Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation by Using MammoSite Brachytherapy
Haitham M. Ahmed, Pamela J. DiPiro, Phillip M. Devlin, My-Linh Nguyen, and Jennifer R. Bellon
Radiology 2010;255 362-368

Link to Journal

Peak mammographic distortion after MammoSite accelerated partial breast irradiation was shown to occur sooner than that after conventional whole-breast radiation