36. Elmore JG, Nakano CY, Koepsell TD, Desnick LM, D’Orsi CJ, Ransohoff DF. 2003. International variation in screening mammography interpretations in community-based programs. J Natl Cancer Inst 95(18):1384-1393.
37. Enzmann DAPHCVL. 2001. Providing professional mammography services: financial analysis. Health Policy Prac 219:467-473.
38. Esserman L, Cowley H, Eberle C, Kirkpatrick A, Chang S, Berbaum K, Gale A. 2002. Improving the accuracy of mammography: volume and outcome relationships. J Natl Cancer Inst 94(5):369-375.
39. Eyre HJ, Smith RA, Mettlin CJ. 2003. Cancer Screening and Early Detection. In: Holland JF, Frei E, Bast RC, Kufe DW, Pollack RE, Weichselbaum RR, Editors. Cancer Medicine. 6th ed. Ontario: BC Decker.
40. Field S. 1996. UK radiology workforce survey—breast imaging services. Royal College of Radiologists Newsletter 45:10-12.
41. Fisher B, Dignam J, Wolmark N, Mamounas E, Costantino J, Poller W, Fisher ER, Wickerham DL, Deutsch M, Margolese R, Dimitrov N, Kavanah M. 1998. Lumpectomy and radiation therapy for the treatment of intraductal breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-17. J Clin Oncol 16(2):441-452.
42. Fletcher SW, Elmore JG. 2003. Clinical practice. Mammographic screening for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 348(17):1672-1680.
43. Foote SB, Blewett LA. 2003. Politics of prevention: expanding prevention benefits in the Medicare program. J Public Health Policy 24(1):26-40.
44. Fowler BA. 2000. Variability in mammography screening legislation across the states. J Womens Health Gender-Based Med 9(2):175-184.
45. Freeman H. 2004. Reducing Disparities in Cancer. Fulfilling the Potential of Cancer Prevention and Early Detection: An American Cancer Society and Institute of Medicine Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
46. Freer TW, Ulissey MJ. 2001. Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology 220(3):781-786.
47. Fronstin P. 2000. Sources of Health Insurance and Characteristics of the Uninsured: Analysis of the March 2000 Current Population Survey. EBRI Issue Brief Number 228 ed. Washington, DC: Employee Benefits Research Institute.
48. Gelijns AC, Thier SO. 2002. Medical innovation and institutional interdependence: rethinking university-industry connections. JAMA 287(1):72-77.
49. Gur D, Sumkin JH, Rockette HE, Ganott M, Hakim C, Hardesty L, Poller WR, Shah R, Wallace L. 2004. Changes in breast cancer detection and mammography recall rates after the introduction of a computer-aided detection system. J Natl Cancer Inst 96(3):185-190.
50. Han B, Wells BL, Primas M. 2003. Comparison of mammography use by older black and white women. J Am Geriatr Soc 51(2):203-212.
51. Harvey SC, Geller B, Oppenheimer RG, Pinet M, Riddell L, Garra B. 2003. Increase in cancer detection and recall rates with independent double interpretation of screening mammography. Am J Roentgenol 180(5):1461-1467.
52. Hayes JC. 2002, December 3. Annual oration analyzes mammography controversies. Web Page. Available at: www.dimag.com/cgi-bin/webcast02/display_news.cgi?105.
53. Hwang ES, Kinkel K, Esserman LJ, Lu Y, Weidner N, Hylton NM. 2003. Magnetic resonance imaging in patients diagnosed with ductal carcinoma-in-situ: value in the diagnosis of residual disease, occult invasion, and multicentricity. Ann Surg Oncol 10(4):381-388.