Professional and economic factors affecting access to mammography: a crisis today, or tomorrow? Results from a national survey.

BACKGROUND: Objective data and anecdotal reports have suggested that access to mammography may be declining because of facility closures and difficulty in recruiting and retaining radiologists and radiologic technologists. To gain insight into the practice patterns, use of emerging technologies, and concerns of breast imagers in current practice, the Society of Breast Imaging (SBI) conducted a national survey of breast imaging practices in the U.S. METHODS: Between October 2003 and April 2004, the SBI conducted a survey of the SBI membership database, and received completed surveys from 575 breast imaging practices in the U.S. Responses to the survey regarding practice characteristics, the utilization of standard and emerging technologies, staffing, malpractice, finance, and morale were analyzed. RESULTS: Job vacancies for radiologists who read mammograms were reported in 163 practices (29%), 59 of which (10%) had 2 or more openings. A higher proportion of practices with job openings had long appointment waiting times for asymptomatic women when compared with fully staffed practices. Unfilled fellowship positions also were common, with 41 of 65 practices that offer fellowships reporting 47 openings. Among 554 responding practices, 55% reported that someone in their practice was sued because of a mammography related case within the past 5 years, and 50% of practices reported that the threat of lawsuits made radiologist staffing "moderately" or "a lot" more difficult. Of 521 responding practices, 35% reported financial losses in 2002. One in 5 respondents reported that they would prefer to spend less time in mammography, and fewer than 1 in 3 would recommend a breast imaging fellowship to a relative or friend. Emerging technologies, such as breast magnetic resonance imaging and screening ultrasound, currently are being performed in many practices. CONCLUSIONS: The survey results provide support for anecdotal reports that breast imaging practices face significant challenges and stresses, including shortages of key personnel, a lack of trainees, malpractice concerns, financial constraints, increased workload due to emerging technologies, low appeal of breast imaging as a career specialty, and the steady rise in the population of women of screening age.

Final results of the Lung Screening Study, a randomized feasibility study of spiral CT versus chest X-ray screening for lung cancer.

The Lung Screening Study (LSS) was a pilot study designed to assess the feasibility of conducting a large scale randomized controlled trial (RCT) of low radiation dose spiral computed tomography (LDCT) versus chest X-ray (CXR) for lung cancer screening. Baseline results of LSS have been previously reported. Here, we report on the findings at the year one screen and on the final results of the LSS study. A total of 1660 subjects were randomized to the LDCT arm and 1658 to the CXR arm. Compliance with screening declined from 96% at baseline to 86% at year one in the LDCT arm and declined from 93% at baseline to 80% at year one in the CXR arm. Positivity rates for the year one screen were 25.8% for LDCT and 8.7% for CXR. Cancer yield was significantly less at year one for LDCT, 0.57%, than at baseline, 1.9%; cancer yield for CXR increased from 0.45% at baseline to 0.68% at year one. Forty lung cancers in the LDCT arm and 20 in the CXR arm were diagnosed over the study period. Stage I cancers comprised 48% of cases in the LDCT arm and 40% in the CXR arm. A total of 16 stage III-IV cancers were observed in the LDCT arm versus nine in the CXR arm. The LSS has established the feasibility of a RCT comparing annual spiral CT to chest X-ray for lung cancer screening.