HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 2273020046v1 227/3/862    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bassett, L. W. Articles by Jackson, V. P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bassett, L. W. Articles by Jackson, V. P.

Survey of Radiology Residents: Breast Imaging Training and Attitudes¹

¹ From the Iris Cantor Center for Breast Imaging, Department of Radiology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and UCLA-Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, 200 UCLA Medical Plaza, Rm 165-49, Los Angeles, CA 90095-6952 (L.W.B., L.W., P.H., J.W.S.); Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine and Siteman Cancer Center, St Louis, Mo (B.S.M., D.M.F.); Cancer Control Department, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Ga (R.A.S.); Department of Radiology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine of New York University and Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY (S.A.F.); and Department of Radiology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis (V.P.J.). From the 2001 RSNA scientific assembly. Received February 5, 2002; revision requested April 2; final revision received October 2; accepted October 14. Address correspondence to L.W.B.

PURPOSE: To investigate the training and attitudes of residents regarding breast imaging.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A telephone survey was conducted with 201 4th-year residents (postgraduate medical school year 5) and 10 3rd-year residents (postgraduate medical school year 4) at 211 accredited radiology residencies in the United States and Canada. Survey topics included organization of the breast imaging section, residents’ role in the section, clinical practice protocols of the training institution, residents’ personal thoughts about breast imaging, and their interest in performing breast imaging in the future.

RESULTS: Of 211 programs, 203 (96%) had dedicated breast imaging rotations; 196 (93%) rotations were 8 weeks or longer; 153 (73%), 12 weeks or longer. Residents dictated reports in 199 (94%) programs. Residents performed real-time ultrasonography (US) in 186 (88%) programs, needle localization in 199 (94%), US-guided biopsy in 174 (82%), and stereotactically guided biopsy in 181 (86%). One hundred eighty-four (87%) residents rated interpretation of mammograms more stressful than they did that of other images, and 137 (65%) believed mammograms should be interpreted by subspecialists. One hundred thirty-five (64%) residents would not consider a fellowship in breast imaging if offered, and 133 (63%) would not want to spend 25% or more of their time in clinical practice on interpretation of mammograms. The most common reasons given for not considering a fellowship or interpretation of mammograms were that breast imaging was not an interesting field, that they feared lawsuits, and that it was too stressful. Fellowships were offered at 53 programs, and at 46 programs, a total of 63 fellows were recruited.

CONCLUSION: Residency training in breast imaging has improved in terms of time and curriculum. However, a majority of the residents would not consider a fellowship and did not want to interpret mammograms in their future practices.

© RSNA, 2003

Index terms: Breast • Breast, US, 00.1298 • Economics, medical • Education • Radiology and radiologists, socioeconomic issues

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. R. Melton Are Current Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA) Physician Guidelines Truly Adequate? Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2008; 191(2): W79 - W79. [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. W. Bassett Breast Imaging: Current Utilization, Trends, and Implications Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2007; 189(3): 612 - 613. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. G. Elmore and R. J. Brenner The More Eyes, the Better to See? From Double to Quadruple Reading of Screening Mammograms J Natl Cancer Inst, August 1, 2007; 99(15): 1141 - 1143. [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. A. Beam, E. F. Conant, and E. A. Sickles Correlation of Radiologist Rank as a Measure of Skill in Screening and Diagnostic Interpretation of Mammograms Radiology, February 1, 2006; 238(2): 446 - 453. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. G. Elmore, S. H. Taplin, W. E. Barlow, G. R. Cutter, C. J. D'Orsi, R. E. Hendrick, L. A. Abraham, J. S. Fosse, and P. A. Carney Does Litigation Influence Medical Practice? The Influence of Community Radiologists' Medical Malpractice Perceptions and Experience on Screening Mammography Radiology, July 1, 2005; 236(1): 37 - 46. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. D'Orsi, S.-P. Tu, C. Nakano, P. A. Carney, L. A. Abraham, S. H. Taplin, R. E. Hendrick, G. R. Cutter, E. Berns, W. E. Barlow, et al. Current Realities of Delivering Mammography Services in the Community: Do Challenges with Staffing and Scheduling Exist? Radiology, May 1, 2005; 235(2): 391 - 395. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. G. Elmore and P. A. Carney Computer-Aided Detection of Breast Cancer: Has Promise Outstripped Performance? J Natl Cancer Inst, February 4, 2004; 96(3): 162 - 163. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. B. Kopans Mammography Screening Is Saving Thousands of Lives, but Will It Survive Medical Malpractice? Radiology, January 1, 2004; 230(1): 20 - 24. [Full Text] [PDF]