» Articles » PMID: 31144277

The Impact of Breast Density Notification Laws on Supplemental Breast Imaging and Breast Biopsy

Overview
Publisher Springer
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2019 May 31
PMID 31144277
Citations 12
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Dense breast tissue increases breast cancer risk and lowers mammography sensitivity, but the value of supplemental imaging for dense breasts remains uncertain. Since 2009, 37 states and Washington DC have passed legislation requiring patient notification about breast density.

Objective: Examine the effects of state breast density notification laws on use of supplemental breast imaging and breast biopsies.

Design: Difference-in-differences analysis of supplemental imaging and biopsies before and after notification laws in 12 states enacting breast density notification laws from 2009 to 2014 and 12 matched control states. Supplemental imaging/biopsy within 6 months following an index mammogram were evaluated during four time periods related to legislation: (1) 6 months before, (2) 0-6 months after, (3) 6-12 months after, and (4) 12-18 months after.

Participants: Women ages 40-64 years receiving an initial mammogram in a state that passed a breast density notification law or a control state.

Intervention: Mandatory breast density notification following an index mammogram.

Main Measures: Use of breast biopsies and supplemental breast imaging (breast ultrasound, tomosynthesis, magnetic resonance imaging, scintimammography, and thermography), overall and by specific test.

Key Results: Supplemental breast imaging and biopsy increased modestly in states with notification laws and changed minimally in control states. Adjusted rates of supplemental imaging and biopsy within 6 months of mammography before legislation were 8.5% and 3.1%, respectively. Compared with pre-legislation in intervention and control states, legislation was associated with adjusted difference-in-differences estimates of + 1.3% (p < 0.0001) and + 0.4% (p < 0.0001) for supplemental imaging and biopsies, respectively, in the 6-12 months after the law and difference-in-differences estimates of + 3.3% (p < 0.0001) and + 0.8% (p < 0.0001) for supplemental imaging and biopsies, respectively, 12-18 months after the law.

Conclusions: As breast density notification laws are considered, policymakers and clinicians should expect increases in breast imaging/biopsies. Additional research is needed on these laws' effects on cost and patient outcomes.

Citing Articles

Changes to the US Preventive Services Task Force Screening Guidelines and Incidence of Breast Cancer.

Zhang-Petersen C, Sowden M, Chen J, Burns J, Sprague B JAMA Netw Open. 2024; 7(12):e2452688.

PMID: 39729313 PMC: 11681378. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.52688.


Breast cancer risk characteristics of women undergoing whole-breast ultrasound screening versus mammography alone.

Sprague B, Ichikawa L, Eavey J, Lowry K, Rauscher G, OMeara E Cancer. 2023; 129(16):2456-2468.

PMID: 37303202 PMC: 10506533. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.34768.


Health Economics Research in Cancer Screening: Research Opportunities, Challenges, and Future Directions.

Shih Y, Sabik L, Stout N, Halpern M, Lipscomb J, Ramsey S J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2022; 2022(59):42-50.

PMID: 35788368 PMC: 9255920. DOI: 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgac008.


Downstream Mammary and Extramammary Cascade Services and Spending Following Screening Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging vs Mammography Among Commercially Insured Women.

Ganguli I, Keating N, Thakore N, Lii J, Raza S, Pace L JAMA Netw Open. 2022; 5(4):e227234.

PMID: 35416989 PMC: 9008498. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.7234.


Identifying women with increased risk of breast cancer and implementing risk-reducing strategies and supplemental imaging.

Vegunta S, Bhatt A, Choudhery S, Pruthi S, Kaur A Breast Cancer. 2021; 29(1):19-29.

PMID: 34665436 DOI: 10.1007/s12282-021-01298-x.


References
1.
Horny M, Cohen A, Duszak Jr R, Christiansen C, Shwartz M, Burgess Jr J . Dense Breast Notification Laws: Impact on Downstream Imaging After Screening Mammography. Med Care Res Rev. 2018; 77(2):143-154. DOI: 10.1177/1077558717751941. View

2.
Moskowitz M, Milbrath J, Gartside P, Zermeno A, Mandel D . Lack of efficacy of thermography as a screening tool for minimal and stage I breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1976; 295(5):249-52. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM197607292950504. View

3.
Parris T, Wakefield D, Frimmer H . Real world performance of screening breast ultrasound following enactment of Connecticut Bill 458. Breast J. 2012; 19(1):64-70. DOI: 10.1111/tbj.12053. View

4.
Stomper P, DSouza D, DiNitto P, Arredondo M . Analysis of parenchymal density on mammograms in 1353 women 25-79 years old. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996; 167(5):1261-5. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.167.5.8911192. View

5.
Sprague B, Gangnon R, Burt V, Trentham-Dietz A, Hampton J, Wellman R . Prevalence of mammographically dense breasts in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014; 106(10). PMC: 4200066. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/dju255. View