Advertisement

Personnel and Structural Prerequisites for Screening-Programs

  • Stefan O. Schoenberg
  • Maximilian F. Reiser
Part of the Medical Radiology book series (MEDRAD)

Abstract

The design of screening-programs requires a careful evaluation of the screening population, its spectrum and prevalence of disease, the training level and motivation of the physician as well as the infrastructure for clinical and radiological work-flow, image analysis and reporting. In this respect, a close interaction between the screening participant, the radiologist and the referring partners is a key prerequisite. The design of the infrastructure has to aim at defining a consistent, reproducible and clinically practicable chain of screening recruitment, diagnostic procedures and follow-up as well as treatment recommendations (Fig. 5.1).

Keywords

Renal Cell Carcinoma Screen Study Mammography Screening Program Framingham Score Screening Participant 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brant-Zawadski M (2006) Cancer detection: evaluation of whole-body MR imaging versus CT and PET/CT — whole-body CT. Annual Meeting of Radiologic Society of North America 2006Google Scholar
  2. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Apruzzese A et al. (2006) Reader variability in reporting breast imaging according to BI-RADS assessment categories (the Florence experience). Breast 15:44–51CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Coldman AJ, Major D, Doyle GP et al. (2006) Organized breast screening programs in Canada: effect of radiologist reading volumes on outcomes. Radiology 238:809–815CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Duijm LE, Groenewoud JH, Hendriks JH et al. (2004) Independent double reading of screening mammograms in The Netherlands: effect of arbitration following reader disagreements. Radiology 231:564–570CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Fuchs B, Trousdale RT, Rock MG (2005) Solitary bony metastasis from renal cell carcinoma: significance of surgical treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 187–192Google Scholar
  6. Graser A, Wintersperger BJ, Suess C et al. (2006) Dose reduction and image quality in MDCT colonography using tube current modulation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:695–701CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Grundy SM (2001) Coronary calcium as a risk factor: role in global risk assessment. J Am Coll Cardiol 37:1512–1515CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Henschke CI, McCauley DI, Yankelevitz DF et al. (1999) Early Lung Cancer Action Project: overall design and findings from baseline screening. Lancet 354:99–105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Henschke CI, Yankelevitz DF, Libby DM et al. (2006) Survival of patients with stage I lung cancer detected on CT screening. N Engl J Med 355:1763–1771CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Lam JS, Shvarts O, Leppert JT et al. (2005) Postoperative surveillance protocol for patients with localized and locally advanced renal cell carcinoma based on a validated prognostic nomogram and risk group stratification system. J Urol 174:466–472CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Lehman C, Holt S, Peacock S et al. (2002) Use of the American College of Radiology BI-RADS guidelines by community radiologists: concordance of assessments and recommendations assigned to screening mammograms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179:15–20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Libby DM, Wu N, Lee IJ et al. (2006) CT screening for lung cancer: the value of short-term CT follow-up. Chest 129:1039–1042.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Marcus PM, Bergstralh EJ, Fagerstrom RM et al. (2000) Lung cancer mortality in the Mayo Lung Project: impact of extended follow-up. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:1308–1316CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Perry N (2001) Quality Assurance in the diagnosis of breast disease. On behalf of EUSOMA Working Party. Eur J Cancer 37:159–172CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I et al. (2003) Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 349:2191–2200CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Rockey DC, Paulson E, Niedzwiecki D et al. (2005) Analysis of air contrast barium enema, computed tomographic colonography, and colonoscopy: prospective comparison. Lancet 365:305–311PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Stephenson AJ, Chetner MP, Rourke K et al. (2004) Guidelines for the surveillance of localized renal cell carcinoma based on the patterns of relapse after nephrectomy. J Urol 172:58–62CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. van Kaick G (2006) Personal communicationGoogle Scholar
  19. Willgeroth F, Baumann M, Blaser D et al. (2005) Bavarian mammography screening program. Radiologe 45:264–268CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan O. Schoenberg
    • 1
  • Maximilian F. Reiser
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Clinical Radiology, University Hospital Mannheim, Medical Faculty MannheimUniversity of HeidelbergMannheimGermany
  2. 2.Department of Clinical Radiology, University Hospitals — Grosshadern and InnenstadtLudwig-Maximilians- University of MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations