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
  • [1] Impact of Breast Density Legislation on Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Supplemental Screening: A Survey of 110 Radiology Facilities
    Nayak, Lina
    Miyake, Kanae K.
    Leung, Jessica W. T.
    Price, Elissa R.
    Liu, Yueyi I.
    Joe, Bonnie N.
    Sickles, Edward A.
    Thomas, William R.
    Lipson, Jafi A.
    Daniel, Bruce L.
    Hargreaves, Jonathan
    Brenner, R. James
    Bassett, Lawrence W.
    Ojeda-Fournier, Haydee
    Lindfors, Karen K.
    Feig, Stephen A.
    Ikeda, Debra M.
    BREAST JOURNAL, 2016, 22 (05): : 493 - 500
  • [2] The impact of breast density on breast cancer risk and breast screening
    Houssami N.
    Kerlikowske K.
    Current Breast Cancer Reports, 2012, 4 (2) : 161 - 168
  • [3] Breast Density Assessment, Risk, and Significance in the Screening of Breast Cancer
    Kalli S.
    Freer P.E.
    Current Radiology Reports, 4 (1) : 1 - 9
  • [4] Mammographic Breast Density: Impact on Breast Cancer Risk and Implications for Screening
    Freer, Phoebe E.
    RADIOGRAPHICS, 2015, 35 (02) : 302 - 315
  • [5] Breast density assessment and organised breast cancer screening
    Bambara, Augustin Tozoula
    Ouedraogo, Nina-Astrid
    Ouedraogo, Pakisba Ali
    Benao, Ouattara Lydia Bamis
    Ouedraogo, Wilfried
    Savadogo, Leon Gueswende Blaise
    Ousseini, Diallo
    Rabiou, Cisse
    BULLETIN DU CANCER, 2023, 110 (09) : 903 - 911
  • [6] 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
  • [7] Mammographic Breast Density and Breast Cancer Risk: Implications of the Breast Density Legislation for Health Care Practitioners
    Green, Victoria L.
    CLINICAL OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2016, 59 (02): : 419 - 438
  • [8] Feasibility Study and Clinical Impact of Incorporating Breast Tissue Density in High-Risk Breast Cancer Screening Assessment
    Rusnak, Alison
    Morrison, Shawna
    Smith, Erika
    Hastings, Valerie
    Anderson, Kelly
    Aldridge, Caitlin
    Zelenietz, Sari
    Reddick, Karen
    Regnier, Sonia
    Alie, Ellen
    Islam, Nayaar
    Fasih, Rutaaba
    Peddle, Susan
    Cordeiro, Erin
    Tomiak, Eva
    Seely, Jean M.
    CURRENT ONCOLOGY, 2022, 29 (11) : 8742 - 8750
  • [9] Importance of Breast Density in Breast Cancer Risk Assessment
    Prentiss, Caitlin W.
    RADIOLOGIC TECHNOLOGY, 2023, 94 (06) : 427 - 429
  • [10] The California Breast Density Information Group: A Collaborative Response to the Issues of Breast Density, Breast Cancer Risk, and Breast Density Notification Legislation
    Price, Elissa R.
    Hargreaves, Jonathan
    Lipson, Jafi A.
    Sickles, Edward A.
    Brenner, R. James
    Lindfors, Karen K.
    Joe, Bonnie N.
    Leung, Jessica W. T.
    Feig, Stephen A.
    Bassett, Lawrence W.
    Ojeda-Fournier, Haydee
    Daniel, Bruce L.
    Kurian, Allison W.
    Love, Elyse
    Ryan, Lauren
    Walgenbach, Donna D.
    Ikeda, Debra M.
    RADIOLOGY, 2013, 269 (03) : 887 - 892