This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Ferris M. Hall, MD
Beth Israel Hospital Boston, Mass

JAMA. 1996;276(18):1470.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—Dr Kerlikowske and colleagues¹ state in their introduction that "approximately 11% of screening mammographic examinations performed in the United States are interpreted as abnormal, requiring the requesting physician to assess the likelihood that the mammographic finding represents breast cancer." These authors conclude by encouraging "radiologists to use the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [BIRADS] assessment categories when reporting screening mammography results, so that primary care physicians can interpret such results and use LRs [likelihood ratios] to estimate a woman's likelihood of breast cancer after screening mammography."

I do not agree with the assumption of this article that primary care physicians need to personally assess the likelihood of breast carcinoma after the detection of abnormalities at screening mammography, most of which are nonpalpable. In the great majority of instances, the decision to obtain additional imaging studies and/or perform biopsy is a mammographic rather than clinical decision. In those few . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?