FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 356:1464-1466 April 5, 2007 Number 14 Next

	Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

	Full Text PDF PDA Full Text Purchase this article Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited E-mail When Letters Appear Related Article by Fenton, J. J.

Breast imaging is the newest, and according to most criteria the weakest, of all radiology subspecialties. Screening mammography in particular often loses money and is subsidized by other sections of the radiology department and occasionally, as in my own case, by direct hospital payments to breast imagers. Screening mammography is also the most common basis for lawsuits in radiology, which is not surprising, since 25 to 50% of cases of breast cancer are identified retrospectively on the previous annual screening mammogram. As the only quasi–public health endeavor in radiology, screening mammography is heavily regulated, with many unfunded mandates. Screening mammography, . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Source Information

From the Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Hall, F. M. (2008). The Rise and Impending Decline of Screening Mammography. Radiology 247: 597-601 [Full Text]  
• Gromet, M. (2008). Comparison of Computer-Aided Detection to Double Reading of Screening Mammograms: Review of 231,221 Mammograms. Am. J. Roentgenol. 190: 854-859 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• (2007). Disappointing Data on Computer-Aided Detection for Screening Mammography. JWatch Women's Health 2007: 3-3 [Full Text]