The indisputable bottom line: Mammograms save lives

Monday, January 12, 2015
Drs. Alan Engel and  Daniel Kopans wrote this piece to remind readers that  mammograms do indeed save lives.

ACR and SBI Guidance on DBT “Off Label” Use

Thursday, January 8, 2015
The American College of Radiology (ACR) and Society of Breast Imaging (SBI) have answered frequently asked questions about off-label use of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT).

ACR Releases Interactive E-Learning Program To Help Physicians Improve Breast Cancer Detection Skills

Tuesday, January 6, 2015
Axis Imaging News (1/6) reports, “The American College of Radiology (ACR) has released an interactive e-learning program to help physicians improve their breast cancer detection skills.” Edward A. Sickles, MD, chair of the ACR Breast Imaging Commission Mammography Case Review Committee, said, “Mammography has helped reduce breast cancer deaths by 35% nationwide and is the gold standard for breast cancer detection. Mammography Case Review (MCR) Online helps physicians better interpret breast imaging exams, which remain our primary weapons in the battle against breast cancer.

A Reality Check for Overdiagnosis Estimates Associated With Breast Cancer Screening

Monday, December 22, 2014

A new study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute explains how and why estimates of breast cancer “overdiagnosis” in mammography screening are often greatly exaggerated.

Click here to read commentaries on the JNCI article by American College of Radiology (ACR) and Society of Breast Imaging (SBI) mammography experts.

How Radiologists Interpret Screening Mammographies May Vary By Technologist Performing The Exam

Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Diagnostic Imaging (12/16) reports that research published in Academic Radiology suggests that “how radiologists interpret screening mammographies varies substantially by the technologist performing the examination.” Investigators “found that the technologists had a statistically significant effect on the radiologists’ recall rate, sensitivity, specificity, and CDR for both SFM and FFDM. For PPV1, variability by technologist was observed for SFM but not for FFDM.”