by Ellen B. Mendelson MD
As women's imaging emerges as a subspecialty, with fellowship programs developing across the country, its champions must bear in mind the danger of gender focus: gender bias.
Women's imaging, concentrating on the health and pathology of
51.9% of the total US population,1 is gaining recognition as a new
subspecialty. Less similar to organ-based subspecialties, women's
imaging is more like the mature subspecialty of pediatric radiology
in addressing health problems that are unique to a large subset of
the population. Although many disease processes cross both age and
sex boundaries, the too-often repeated observation that children
are not just small adults justifies the existence and growth of
pediatric radiology as a multimodality, multiorgan system
subspecialty. Women, too, have physiologies and pathologic
processes different from those of men, and a subspecialty similar
to pediatric radiology in its scope and organization is evolving to
provide consultative expertise to
clinicians-obstetrician-gynecologists, internists, family
practitioners, and emergency physicians.
The genesis of women's imaging can be explained partly by the
bonding of medical needs and new technologies, but there are
broader political considerations to this new subspecialty. Bone
densitometry, hysterosonography, pelvic MRI, technetium sestamibi
scans, and breast MRI and ultrasound in addition to mammography
call on the expertise of subspecialists in women's imaging for
advising patients and clinicians about the benefits of hormone
replacement therapy or endometrial side effects of tamoxifen
treatment for breast cancer.
Greater funding for research and a higher profile in general
have accrued to radiology because women's health issues are
politically hot. A federal agency, The Office of Women's Health, in
the Department of Defense, has earmarked multimillion-dollar grant
awards for breast cancer research. Mammographic screening for
breast cancer is the most developed expression of women's health
issues, and consumer demand for low-cost, convenient, high-quality
studies, and pressure for government regulation to achieve minimum
standards for these radiologic examinations, are a first. Bathed in
a political spotlight, with many attendant crises related to false
negatives and overcalling abnormalities, mammographic screening for
breast cancer has brought radiology and radiologists into the
medical foreground with the passage in 1992 of the Mammography
Quality Standards Act (MQSA), administered by the Food and Drug
Administration and based on the American College of Radiology's
rigorous voluntary quality assurance program. Although there is
general agreement that mammographic screening has reduced mortality
from breast cancer by about 30%, every so often (1993, 1997, and
2002), there is rumbling about the efficacy of screening for breast
cancer. Epidemiologists are at odds with diagnostic radiologists
and oncologists. Is the negativity related to economic factors or
to academic squabbles? It would be tragic to lose ground we have
gained against breast cancer, the most common cancer in women.
A Double-edged Sword
Gender focus, however, works in two directions. It works not
only to benefit women in the evolution of a new subspecialty within
diagnostic radiology but can come into play as reverse gender bias.
Women have favored and have even demanded that their physicians
also be women because of the increased sensitivity and empathy for
women's problems that is attributed to women physicians. For many
reasons, this prejudice against men should be discouraged. Skilled,
knowledgeable practitioners, men and women, should have equal
opportunity to practice in the areas of interest and expertise.
Competence should not be assessed by gender. The marketing of
women's imaging seems to require the hiring of women radiologists,
discouraging men from entering this field. Another negative result
of female predominance that can be expected is an income
differential, with less income for women physicians than for their
male equivalents.
Turning to the practical aspects of women's imaging, this
subspecialty fits in well within the structure of managed care
medicine. Women's imaging, because of its clinical strength, can
also counter some of the raids on radiologic turf that have
resulted in shifting from diagnostic radiology the areas of
obstetrical ultrasound, vascular ultrasound, and coronary
arteriography. In some established radiologic subspecialties,
responsibility for patient care has replaced film reading. Breast
imaging (and interventions), housed in breast and women's imaging
centers, has evolved as has interventional radiology, with the
radiologist playing an active role in the management of nonpalpable
breast lesions and provision of a histologic diagnosis through core
biopsy.
In response to patient demand for these services and medical
efficiency, women's imagers need to work closely as both
consultants and orchestrators of patient management. In recognition
of the fact that additional training is needed for effective
practice of this subspecialty, women's imaging fellowships were
developed, the first offered in 1992 by Amy Thurmond, MD, then at
the University of Oregon. A second fellowship, at The Western
Pennsylvania Hospital in Pittsburgh, was begun shortly thereafter.
Each year there are greater numbers of these fellowships offered
nationally, with curricula in breast imaging, pelvic ultrasound,
MRI and CT, bone densitometry, and percutaneous procedures,
image-guided, both for diagnosis and, in some instances, for
therapy. Although widespread loss of obstetrical sonography from
departments of radiology handicaps the training of radiologists in
women's imaging, many of these fellowships make provisions for the
needed familiarity with obstetrical sonography. Most of the
fellowships are 1 year, and some of them, recognizing the need for
clinical experience as well as imaging expertise, include rotations
in pathology and breast and gynecologic surgery. For practicing
physicians, the arrival of subspecialization in women's imaging has
been formalized with the institution of the Society for the
Advancement of Women's Imaging (SAWI), now a member of the American
College of Radiology's Intersociety Commission. The society first
met informally in 1992 as radiologists with common interests shared
experiences and discussed the potential for developing a
subspecialty within diagnostic radiology. The society has grown
and, as part of its mission, has begun to detail training
requirements and fellowship listings. A continuing medical
education course sponsored by SAWI will again be offered in May
2002, to bring practitioners up-to-date in the subspecialty,
assessment of its accomplishments, and its incorporation into the
medical care of women.
Ellen B. Mendelson, MD, is medical director, breast imaging, Lynn Sage Comprehensive Breast Center, and professor, radiology department, Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago. Portions of this editorial are adapted from Mendelson EB. Women's imaging. Radiology. 1998
References:
- Reiter RC. The health of women: a current perspective. In: Moore TR, Reiter RC, Rebar RW, Baker VV, eds. Gynecology & Obstetrics: A Longitudinal Approach. New York: Churchill Livingstone Inc; 1993:1-14.