Breast Density Legislation Impact on Breast Cancer Screening and Risk Assessment

被引:3
作者
Kothari, Pranay [1 ]
Tseng, Joseph J. [2 ]
Chalfant, James S. [3 ]
Pittman, Sarah M. [2 ]
Hoyt, Anne C. [3 ]
Larsen, Linda [4 ]
Sheth, Pulin [4 ]
Yamashita, Mary [4 ]
Downey, John [5 ]
Ikeda, Debra M. [2 ]
机构
[1] Scripps Hlth, Dept Radiol, San Diego, CA USA
[2] Stanford Univ, Dept Radiol, Sch Med, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
[3] Univ Calif Los Angeles, Dept Radiol Sci, David Geffen Sch Med, Santa Monica, CA USA
[4] Univ Southern Calif, Dept Radiol, Los Angeles, CA USA
[5] Kaiser Permanente Med Ctr, Dept Radiol, Walnut Creek, CA USA
关键词
breast cancer; mammography; screening; breast ultrasound; breast density; breast density notification laws; MAMMOGRAPHIC DENSITY; WOMEN;
D O I
10.1093/jbi/wbac034
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Objective To evaluate breast density notification legislation (BDNL) on breast imaging practice patterns, risk assessment, and supplemental screening. Methods A 20-question anonymous web-based survey was administered to practicing Society of Breast Imaging radiologists in the U.S. between February and April 2021 regarding breast cancer risk assessment, supplemental screening, and density measurements. Results were compared between facilities with and without BDNL using the two-sided Fisher's exact test. Results One hundred and ninety-seven radiologists from 41 U.S. states, with (187/197, 95%) or without (10/197, 5%) BDNL, responded. Fifty-seven percent (113/197) performed breast cancer risk assessment, and 93% (183/197) offered supplemental screening for women with dense breasts. Between facilities with or without BDNL, there was no significant difference in whether risk assessment was (P = 0.19) or was not performed (P = 0.20). There was no significant difference in supplemental screening types (P > 0.05) between BDNL and non-BDNL facilities. Thirty-five percent (69/197) of facilities offered no supplemental screening studies, and 25% (49/197) had no future plans to offer supplemental screening. A statistically significant greater proportion of non-BDNL facilities offered no supplemental screening (P < 0.03) and had no plans to offer supplemental screening compared to BDNL facilities (P < 0.02). Conclusion Facilities in BDNL states often offer supplemental screening compared to facilities in non-BDNL states. Compared to BDNL facilities, a statistically significant proportion of non-BDNL facilities had no supplemental screening nor plans for implementation. Our data suggest that upcoming federal BDNL will impact how supplemental screening is addressed in currently non-BDNL states.
引用
收藏
页码:371 / 377
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Heterogenous Effect of Risk Factors on Breast Cancer across the Breast Density Categories in a Korean Screening Population
    Park, Boyoung
    Lim, Se-Eun
    Ahn, HyoJin
    Yoon, Junghyun
    Choi, Yun Su
    CANCERS, 2020, 12 (06)
  • [22] In vitro fertilization impact on the risk of breast cancer
    Mihai, Ana-Maria
    Ianculescu, Laura Maria
    Cretoiu, Dragos
    Suciu, Nicolae
    ARCHIVE OF CLINICAL CASES, 2024, 11 (03): : 73 - 82
  • [23] Family History of Breast Cancer, Breast Density, and Breast Cancer Risk in a US Breast Cancer Screening Population
    Ahern, Thomas P.
    Sprague, Brian L.
    Bissell, Michael C. S.
    Miglioretti, Diana L.
    Buist, Diana S. M.
    Braithwaite, Dejana
    Kerlikowske, Karla
    CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION, 2017, 26 (06) : 938 - 944
  • [24] Women's Breast Cancer Screening Confidence by Screening Modality and Breast Density: A Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Survey Study
    Tosteson, Anna N. A.
    Schifferdecker, Karen E.
    Smith, Rebecca E.
    Wernli, Karen J.
    Zhao, Wenyan
    Kaplan, Celia P.
    Buist, Diana S. M.
    Henderson, Louise M.
    Sprague, Brian L.
    Onega, Tracy
    Budesky, Jill
    Jackson-Nefertiti, Gloria
    Johnson, Dianne
    Miglioretti, Diana L.
    Kerlikowske, Karla
    JOURNAL OF WOMENS HEALTH, 2022, 31 (11) : 1547 - 1556
  • [25] Impact of adding breast density to breast cancer risk models: A systematic review
    Vilmun, Bolette Mikela
    Vejborg, Ilse
    Lynge, Elsebeth
    Lillholm, Martin
    Nielsen, Mads
    Nielsen, Michael Bachmann
    Carlsen, Jonathan Frederik
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2020, 127
  • [26] Knowledge of Breast Density and Awareness of Related Breast Cancer Risk
    Manning, Mark A.
    Duric, Neb
    Littrup, Peter
    Bey-Knight, Lisa
    Penner, Louis
    Albrecht, Terrance L.
    JOURNAL OF CANCER EDUCATION, 2013, 28 (02) : 270 - 274
  • [27] Availability Versus Utilization of Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening Post Passage of Breast Density Legislation
    Marsh, Mary W.
    Benefield, Thad S.
    Lee, Sheila
    Pritchard, Michael
    Earnhardt, Katie
    Agans, Robert
    Henderson, Louise M.
    JOURNAL OF WOMENS HEALTH, 2021, 30 (04) : 579 - 586
  • [28] Multimodality Imaging of Breast Parenchymal Density and Correlation with Risk Assessment
    Wengert, Georg J.
    Helbich, Thomas H.
    Leithner, Doris
    Morris, Elizabeth A.
    Baltzer, Pascal A. T.
    Pinker, Katja
    CURRENT BREAST CANCER REPORTS, 2019, 11 (01) : 23 - 33
  • [29] Mammographic density and breast cancer risk in breast screening assessment cases and women with a family history of breast cancer
    Duffy, Stephen W.
    Morrish, Oliver W. E.
    Allgood, Prue C.
    Black, Richard
    Gillan, Maureen G. C.
    Willsher, Paula
    Cooke, Julie
    Duncan, Karen A.
    Michell, Michael J.
    Dobson, Hilary M.
    Maroni, Roberta
    Lim, Yit Y.
    Purushothaman, Hema N.
    Suaris, Tamara
    Astley, Susan M.
    Young, Kenneth C.
    Tucker, Lorraine
    Gilbert, Fiona J.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2018, 88 : 48 - 56
  • [30] Screening of populations at high risk for breast cancer
    Lee, Tiffany C.
    Reyna, Chantal
    Shaughnessy, Elizabeth
    Lewis, Jaime D.
    JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2019, 120 (05) : 820 - 830