Affiliations
AffiliationsItem in Clipboard
The Effect of California's Breast Density Notification Legislation on Breast Cancer ScreeningStephanie Lynn Chau et al. J Prim Care Community Health. 2017 Apr.
doi: 10.1177/2150131916674889. Epub 2016 Oct 31. AffiliationsItem in Clipboard
AbstractPurpose: Half of US states mandate women be notified if they have dense breasts on their mammogram, yet guidelines and data on supplemental screening modalities are limited. Breast density (BD) refers to the extent that breast tissue appears radiographically dense on mammograms. High BD reduces the sensitivity of screening mammography and increases breast cancer risk. The aim of this study was to determine the potential impact of California's 2013 BD notification legislation on breast cancer screening patterns.
Methods: We conducted a cohort study of women aged 40 to 74 years who were members of a large Northern California integrated health plan (approximately 3.9 million members) in 2011-2015. We calculated pre- and post-legislation rates of screening mammography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We also examined whether women with dense breasts (defined as BI-RADS density c or d) had higher MRI rates than women with nondense breasts (defined as BI-RADS density a or b).
Results: After adjustment for race/ethnicity, age, body mass index, medical facility, neighborhood median income, and cancer history, there was a relative 6.6% decrease (relative risk [RR] 0.934, confidence interval [CI] 0.92-0.95) in the rate of screening mammography, largely driven by a decrease among women <50 years. While infrequent, there was a relative 16% increase (RR 1.16, CI 1.07-1.25) in the rate of screening MRI, with the greatest increase among the youngest women. In the postlegislation period, women with extremely dense breasts (BI-RADS d) had 2.77 times (CI 1.93-3.95) the odds of a MRI within 9 months of a screening mammogram compared with women with nondense breasts (BI-RADS b).
Conclusions: In this setting, MRI rates increased in the postlegislation period. In addition, women with higher BD were more likely to have supplementary MRI. The decrease in mammography rates seen primarily among younger women may have been due to changes in national screening guidelines.
Keywords: California; breast MRI; breast cancer; breast density; cancer screening; mammography; notification legislation; supplementary screening.
Conflict of interest statementDeclaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
FiguresFigure 1.
Distribution of breast density categories…
Figure 1.
Distribution of breast density categories (April 2013 to March 2015): (a) overall; (b)…
Figure 1.Distribution of breast density categories (April 2013 to March 2015): (a) overall; (b) by race/ethnicity; (c) by age; and (d) Neighborhood median income. Heterogen. dense, heterogenously dense; Native Am, Native American.
Figure 2.
Adjusted odds ratios a and…
Figure 2.
Adjusted odds ratios a and confidence bounds for having screening magnetic resonance imaging…
Figure 2.Adjusted odds ratiosa and confidence bounds for having screening magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) within 9 months of screening mammogram in the postlegislative period. Ref, reference. a Odds ratios estimated by logistic regression controlled for all variables in the figure plus medical center and cancer history.
Similar articlesHoussami N, Lee CI. Houssami N, et al. Breast. 2018 Dec;42:102-112. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2018.09.001. Epub 2018 Sep 11. Breast. 2018. PMID: 30236594 Free PMC article. Review.
Melnikow J, Fenton JJ, Whitlock EP, Miglioretti DL, Weyrich MS, Thompson JH, Shah K. Melnikow J, et al. Ann Intern Med. 2016 Feb 16;164(4):268-78. doi: 10.7326/M15-1789. Epub 2016 Jan 12. Ann Intern Med. 2016. PMID: 26757021 Free PMC article. Review.
Kerlikowske K, Zhu W, Tosteson AN, Sprague BL, Tice JA, Lehman CD, Miglioretti DL; Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Kerlikowske K, et al. Ann Intern Med. 2015 May 19;162(10):673-81. doi: 10.7326/M14-1465. Ann Intern Med. 2015. PMID: 25984843 Free PMC article.
Kerlikowske K, Zhu W, Su YR, Sprague BL, Stout NK, Onega T, O'Meara ES, Henderson LM, Tosteson ANA, Wernli K, Miglioretti DL. Kerlikowske K, et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2024 Feb 8;116(2):249-257. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djad201. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2024. PMID: 37897090 Free PMC article.
Sanders LM, King AB, Goodman KS. Sanders LM, et al. J Am Coll Radiol. 2016 Oct;13(10):1189-1194. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2016.05.005. Epub 2016 Jun 16. J Am Coll Radiol. 2016. PMID: 27318582
Aminawung JA, Hoag JR, Kyanko KA, Xu X, Richman IB, Busch SH, Gross CP. Aminawung JA, et al. Cancer Med. 2020 Aug;9(15):5662-5671. doi: 10.1002/cam4.3218. Epub 2020 Jun 14. Cancer Med. 2020. PMID: 32537899 Free PMC article.
Houssami N, Lee CI. Houssami N, et al. Breast. 2018 Dec;42:102-112. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2018.09.001. Epub 2018 Sep 11. Breast. 2018. PMID: 30236594 Free PMC article. Review.
Wehbe A, Gonte MR, O'Neill SC, Amit-Yousif A, Purrington K, Manning M, Simon MS. Wehbe A, et al. Cancer Med. 2023 Jul;12(14):15482-15491. doi: 10.1002/cam4.6182. Epub 2023 Jun 17. Cancer Med. 2023. PMID: 37329206 Free PMC article.
Santiago-Rivas M, Benjamin S, Andrews JZ, Jandorf L. Santiago-Rivas M, et al. J Cancer Educ. 2019 Feb;34(1):90-97. doi: 10.1007/s13187-017-1271-y. J Cancer Educ. 2019. PMID: 28808894 Free PMC article.
Pirikahu S, Lund H, Cadby G, Wylie E, Stone J. Pirikahu S, et al. Breast Cancer Res. 2022 Jan 15;24(1):5. doi: 10.1186/s13058-021-01499-4. Breast Cancer Res. 2022. PMID: 35033155 Free PMC article.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.3