Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T16:56:05.985Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Technology Of Mammography: Misunderstood and Underutilized

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Sarah A. Fox ,
Carolyn Kimme-Smith  and
Dennis S. Kios
Sarah A. Fox
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
Carolyn Kimme-Smith
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
Dennis S. Kios
Affiliation:
California School of Professional Psychology
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article reviews milestones in the technological development of mammography since 1970. Mammography is particularly underutilized as a screening procedure for breast cancer and the reasons for its continued inappropriate and under use are explored. Although there are some known barriers to increased utilization among the female adult population, the majority of barriers reside within the domain of referring physicians. Remedies to address the low referral rates for screening mammography are outlined for federal agencies, radiology groups, mammography equipment companies, medical schools, and philanthropic groups. Until the developers of technological procedures such as mammography appreciate that the application of a technology and its appropriate utilization by professionals and the public are important to consider when the technology is developed, utilization rates may not do justice to the technology's potential.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 4 , Issue 4 , October 1988 , pp. 521 - 544
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Report Na 18. A primer on low level ionizing radiation and its biological effects. 1986, 16–17.Google Scholar
2. American Cancer Society. Cancer statistics. CA-A Cancer Journalfor Clinicians, 1984, 34,7–23.Google Scholar
3. American Cancer Society. Survey of physicians' attitudes and practices in early cancer detection. CA-A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 1985, 35, 197–213.Google Scholar
4. American Cancer Society. A study of women's awareness and use of mammograms. 1986. Unpublished.Google Scholar
5. Bailar, J. C.Mammography: A contrary view. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1976, 84,77–84.Google Scholar
6. Bailar, J. C.Screening for early breast cancer: Pros and cons.Cancer, 1977, 39, 2783–95.Google Scholar
7. Bailar, J. C.Mammographic screening: A re-appraisal of benefits and risks. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1978, 21, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Bailar, J. C.Mammography before age 50 years? Journal of the American Medical Association, 1988, 259, 1548–49.Google Scholar
9. Baker, L. H.Breast cancer detection demonstration project: Five-year summary report. CA-A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 1982, 32, 194–225.Google Scholar
10. Bassett, L. W., Arnold, B. A., Borger, D., Eisenberg, H. C., Gold, R. H., Mahn, O. R., & Holland, W. P.Reduced dose magnification mammography. Radiology, 1981, 141, 665–70.Google Scholar
11. Bassett, L. W., Bunnell, D. H., Cerny, J. A., & Gold, R. H.Screening mammography: Referral practices of Los Angeles physicians. American Journal of Roentgenology, 1986, 147, 689–92.Google Scholar
12. Bates, B., & Mulinare, J.Physicians' use and opinions of screening tests in ambulatory practice. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1970, 214, 2173–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Battista, R. N.Adult cancer prevention in primary care: Patterns of practice in Quebec.American Journal of Public Health, 1983, 73, 1036–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Beahrs, O. H., Shapiro, S., & Smart, C. R.Report of the working group to review the National Cancer Institute–American Cancer Society breast cancer detection demonstration projects. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1979, 62, 640–709.Google Scholar
15. Boice, J. D., & Manson, R. R.Breast cancer in women after repeated fluoroscopic examinations of the chest. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1977, 59, 823–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Breast cancer: A measure of progress in public understanding. Technical Report. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Publication No. (NIH) 81–2291, Princeton, NJ: Opinion Research Corporation, 1980.Google Scholar
17. Breslow, L., Henderson, B., Massey, F., Peke, M., & Winkelstein, W.Report of the National Cancer Institute ad hoc working group on the gross and net benefit of mammography in mass screening for the detection of breast cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1977, 59, 471–532.Google Scholar
18. Cancer patient survival. A report from the cancer surveillance, epidemiology and end results (SEER) program. Department of Health, Education and Welfare Publication No. (NIH) 77–992, 1977.Google Scholar
19. Committee on the biological effects of ionizing radiation, National Academy of Science–National Research Council. The effects on populations of exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation. (BEIR III Report). Washington, DC: National Academy of Science, 1980.Google Scholar
20. Culliton, B. J. Mammography controversy: NIH's entree into evaluating technology. Science,1977, 198, 171–73.Google Scholar
21. Culliton, B. J.Cancer institute unilaterally issues new restrictions on mammography. Science, 1977, 196, 853–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Eddy, D. M., Hasselbead, V., McGivney, W., & Hendee, W.The value of mammography screening in women under age 50 years. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1988, 259, 1512–19.Google Scholar
23. Fabrkant, J. I.The BEIR III report: Origin of the controversy. American Journal of Roentgenology, 1981, 136, 209–14.Google Scholar
24. Fox, S. A., Klos, D. S., & Tsou, C. V.Underuse of screening mammography by family physicians. Radiology, 1988, 166, 431–33.Google Scholar
25. Fox, S. A., Klos, D. S., Tsou, C. V., & Baum, J. K.Breast cancer screening recommendations: Current status of women's knowledge Family and Community Health, 1987, 10, 39–50.Google Scholar
26. Fox, S. A., Worthen, N. J., & Klos, D. S. Ethnic and racial issues in the acceptance of mammography. Unpublished.Google Scholar
27. Fox, S., Baum, J. K., Klos, D. S., & Tsou, C. V.Breast cancer screening: The underuse of mammography. Radiology, 1985, 156, 607–611.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28. Friedrich, M., & Weiskamp, P.New modalities in mammographic imaging: Comparison of grid and air gap magnification techniques. Medicamundi, 1978, 23, 1.Google Scholar
29. Gregg, E. C.Radiation risks with diagnostic x-rays. Radiology, 1977, 123, 447–53.Google Scholar
30. Hammerstein, G. R., Miller, D. W., White, D. R., Masterson, M. E., Woodard, H. Q., & Laughlin, J. S.Absorbed radiation dose in mammography. Radiology 1979, 130, 485–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31. Hendie, W. R.Low level radiation bioeffects: The need for an educational program for the public. Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 1980, 22, 90–93.Google Scholar
32. Howard, J.Using mammography for cancer control: An unrealized potential. CA-A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 1987, 37(1), 3–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33. Kimme-Smith, C., Bassett, L. W., & Gold, R. H.Evaluation of radiation dose, focal spot, and automatic exposure of newer film-screen mammography units. American Journal of Roentgenology, 1987, 149, 913–17.Google Scholar
34. Kimme-Smith, C., Bassett, L. W., & Gold, R. H.Mammographic dual screen-dual emulsion film combination: Visibility of simulated microcalcifications and effect on image contrast in a designed experiment. Radiology, 1987, 165, 313–18.Google Scholar
35. Land, C. E.Estimating cancer risks from low doses of ionizing radiation. Science, 1980, 209, 1197–03.Google Scholar
36. Logan, W. W., & Muntz, E. P. (eds.). Reduced dose mammography. New York: Masson Publishing, 1979, 95.Google Scholar
37. Mandel, I. G., Franks, P., & Dickinson, J. C.Screening guidelines in a family medicine program: A five-year experience. Journal of Family Practice, 1982, 14, 901–07.Google Scholar
38. McGregor, D. H., Land, C. E., Chai, K., Tokuoka, S., Lui, P. I., Wakabayashi, T., & Beebe, O. W.Breast cancer incidence among atomic bomb survivors, Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1950–1969, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1977, 59, 799–811.Google Scholar
39. McPhee, S. J., Richard, R. J., & Solkowitz, S. N.Performance of cancer screening in a university general internal medicine practice: Comparison with the 1980 American Cancer Society guidelines. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 1986, 1, 275–81.Google Scholar
40. Muntz, E. P., Wilkinson, E., & George, F. W.Mammography at reduced doses: Present performance and future possibilities. American Journal of Roentgenology, 1980, 134, 741–47.Google Scholar
41. National Research Council, Advisory Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation. The effects on populations of exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation (BEIR II Report). Washington, DC: National Academy of Science, 1972.Google Scholar
42. Pachin, E. E.Problems involved in detecting increased malignancy rates in areas of high natural radiation background. Health Physics, 1976, 31, 148–51.Google Scholar
43. Randolph, M. L., & Brewen, J. G.Estimation of whole body doses by means of chromosome aberrations observed in survivors of the Hiroshima A-bomb. Radiation Research, 1980, 82, 393–407.Google Scholar
44. Reeder, S., Berkanovic, E., & Marcus, A. C.Breast cancer detection behavior among urban women. Public Health Report, 1980, 95, 276–81.Google Scholar
45. Rothschild, P., Kimme-Smith, C., Bassett, L. W., Gold, R. H., & Moler, C. Improved contrast and dose reduction in film-screen mammography: Increased film processor development time. Radiological Society of North America, 1987.Google Scholar
46. Shapiro, S.Evidence on screening for breast cancer from a randomized trial. Cancer, 1977, 39, 2772–82.Google Scholar
47. Shapiro, S., Strax, P., & Venet, L.Periodic breast cancer screening in reducing mortality from breast cancer. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1971, 215, 1777–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
48. Shapiro, S., Venet, W., Strax, P., Venet, L., & Roeser, R.len- to fourteen-year effect of screening on breast cancer mortality. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1982, 69, 349–55.Google Scholar
49. Shore, R. E., Hempelmann, L. H., Kowaluk, E., Mansur, P. S., et al. Breast neoplasms in women treated with x-rays for acute post partum mastitis. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1977, 59, 813–22.Google Scholar
50. Sinclair, W. K.Effects of low-level radiation and comparative risk. Radiology, 1981, 138, 1–9.Google Scholar
51. Speiser, R. C., Zanrasso, E. M., Jeromin, L. S., & Carson, R. A.Dose comparisons for mammographic systems. Medical Physics, 1986, 13, 667–73.Google Scholar
52. Spiers, E W.Background radiation and estimated risks from low-dose irradiation. Health Physics, 1979, 37, 784–89.Google ScholarPubMed
53. Stonton, L., Villafana, T., Day, J. L., & Lightfoot, D. A.Dosage evaluation in mammography. Radiology, 1984, 150, 577–84.Google Scholar
54. Taber, L., Fagerberg, C. J. G., Gad, A., et al. Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Randomized trial from the breast cancer screening working group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Lancet, 1985, 1, 829–32.Google Scholar
55. Wachus, J. F., Fullerton, G. D., & DeWerd, L. A.Mailed thermoluminiscent dosimeter determination of entrance skin exposure and half-value layer in mammography. American Journal of Roentgenology, 1978, 131, 617–19.Google Scholar