Dataset Information

Supplemental Breast Imaging Utilization After Breast Density Legislation in North Carolina.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Breast density notification laws are increasingly common but little is known of how they affect supplemental screening use. The aim of this study was to investigate supplemental screening before and after density notification in North Carolina, where notification has been required since 2014.

Methods

Breast screening data from Carolina Mammography Registry participants aged 40 to 79 years with no personal histories of breast cancer or breast implants were evaluated. Supplemental screening was defined as a nondiagnostic digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), whole-breast ultrasound, or breast MRI performed within 3 months of negative or benign results on screening mammography (2-D or DBT). Supplemental screening before (2012-2013) and after (2014-2016) the notification law was compared using logistic regression.

Results

During the study period, 78,967 women underwent 145,279 index screening mammographic examinations. Supplemental screening use was similar before and after the notification law, regardless of breast density (dense breasts: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58-1.75; nondense breasts: aOR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.38-1.04). Although there was no change in supplemental screening, new use of any screening DBT from 2014 to 2016 was greater for women with dense breasts (versus nondense breasts; aOR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.08-1.23).

Conclusions

Data suggest that supplemental screening use in North Carolina did not change after enactment of a breast density notification law, though the increase in new use of any screening DBT was greater for women with dense breasts. The short-term lack of change in supplemental screening should be considered as additional notification laws are developed.

SUBMITTER: Nyante SJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6938553 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Supplemental Breast Imaging Utilization After Breast Density Legislation in North Carolina.

Nyante Sarah J SJ Marsh Mary W MW Benefield Thad T Earnhardt Kathryn K Lee Sheila S SS Henderson Louise M LM

Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR 20190701 1 Pt A

<h4>Purpose</h4>Breast density notification laws are increasingly common but little is known of how they affect supplemental screening use. The aim of this study was to investigate supplemental screening before and after density notification in North Carolina, where notification has been required since 2014.<h4>Methods</h4>Breast screening data from Carolina Mammography Registry participants aged 40 to 79 years with no personal histories of breast cancer or breast implants were evaluated. Supple ...[more]

PMID: 31271735

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Given the growth in dense breast notification (DBN) legislation in the United States, we examined the association between different types of DBN laws and supplemental screening behaviors among women. METHODS:We surveyed in March-April 2018 a nationally representative sample of women aged 40-59 years who received a routine screening mammogram in the past 18 months. Survey items included the following topics regarding supplemental screening: discussing risks or benefits with a provider, knowledge about the risk of false positives, and utilization. We grouped women by state DBN into non-DBN, generic DBN (mentions breast density but not supplemental screening), DBN that mentions supplemental screening (DBN-SS), and DBN with mandated insurance coverage for supplemental screening (DBN-coverage), and estimated adjusted predicted probabilities for supplemental screening behaviors. RESULTS:Of 1641 women surveyed, 21.3% resided in non-DBN, 41.2% in generic DBN, 25.8% in DBN-SS, and 12.5% in DBN-coverage states. Overall, 23.0% of respondents had discussed supplemental screening with a provider, 11.3% of whom discussed the risks, and 49.5% discussed the benefits. In adjusted analysis, women living in DBN-coverage states were more likely to discuss supplemental screening (27.5%) than women in non-DBN states (13.6%); pairwise contrast 13.8% (95% CI, 2.1% to 25.6%; P = .01). They were also more likely to have received supplemental screening for increased breast density (19.3%) compared to women living in non-DBN (9.9%); contrast 9.4% (95% CI, 1.6% to 17.3%; P = .01), Generic DBN (7.3%); difference 12.0% (95% CI, 4.6% to 19.4%; P =< .001), and DBN-SS (8.8%); contrast 10.5% (95% CI, 2.6% to 18.5%; P < .01) states. CONCLUSIONS:Women in DBN-coverage states were more likely to discuss supplemental screening with their providers, and to undergo supplemental screening, compared to women in states with other types of DBN laws, or without DBN laws.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Twenty-eight states have passed breast density notification laws, which require physicians to inform women of a finding of dense breasts on mammography. OBJECTIVE:To evaluate changes in breast cancer stage at diagnosis after enactment of breast density notification legislation. DESIGN:Using a difference-in-differences analysis, we examined changes in stage at diagnosis among women with breast cancer in Connecticut, the first state to enact legislation, compared to changes among women in control states. We used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) registry, 2005-2013. PARTICIPANTS:Women ages 40-74 with breast cancer. INTERVENTION:Breast density notification legislation, enacted in Connecticut in October of 2009. MAIN MEASURE:Breast cancer stage at diagnosis. KEY RESULTS:Our study included 466,930 women, 25,592 of whom lived in Connecticut. Legislation was associated with a 1.38-percentage-point (95 % CI 0.12 to 2.63) increase in the proportion of women in Connecticut versus control states who had localized invasive cancer at the time of diagnosis, and a 1.12-percentage-point (95 % CI -2.21 to -0.08) decline in the proportion of women with ductal carcinoma in situ at diagnosis. Breast density notification legislation was not associated with a change in the proportion of women in Connecticut versus control states with regional-stage (-0.09 percentage points, 95 % CI -1.01 to 1.02) or metastatic disease (-0.24, 95 % CI -0.75 to 0.28). County-level analyses and analyses limited to women younger than 50 found no statistically significant associations. LIMITATIONS:Single intervention state, limited follow-up, potential confounding from unobserved trends. CONCLUSIONS:Breast density notification legislation in Connecticut was associated with a small increase in the proportion of women diagnosed with localized invasive breast cancer in individual-level but not county-level analyses. Whether this finding reflects potentially beneficial early detection or potentially harmful overdiagnosis is not known. Legislation was not associated with changes in regional or metastatic disease.

Project description:Breast cancer brain metastasis (BCBM) confers a poor prognosis and is unusual in requiring multidisciplinary care in the metastatic setting. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH) has created a BCBM clinic to provide medical and radiation oncology, neurosurgical, and supportive services to this complex patient population. We describe organization and design of the clinic as well as characteristics, treatments, and outcomes of the patients seen in its first 3 years.Clinical and demographic data were collected from patients in a prospectively maintained database. Descriptive statistics are reported as percentages and means. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate time-to-event outcomes.Sixty-five patients were seen between January 2012 and January 2015. At the time of presentation to the BCBM clinic, most patients (74%) had multiple (?2) brain metastases and had received prior systemic (77%) and whole-brain radiation therapy and/or central nervous system stereotactic radiosurgery (65%) in the metastatic setting. Seventy-eight percent returned for a follow-up visit; 32% were enrolled in a clinical trial. Median time from diagnosis of brain metastasis to death was 2.11 years (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.31-2.47) for all patients, 1.15 years (95% CI 0.4-2.43) for triple-negative breast cancer, 1.31 years (95% CI 0.51-2.52) for hormone receptor-positive/HER2- breast cancer, and 3.03 years (95% CI lower limit 1.94, upper limit not estimable) for HER2+ breast cancer (p = .0037).Patients with BCBM have unique and complex needs that require input from several oncologic disciplines. The development of the UNC-CH multidisciplinary BCBM clinic is a model that can be adapted at other centers to provide coordinated care for patients with a challenging and complex disease.Patients with breast cancer brain metastases often require unique multidisciplinary care to meet the numerous and uncommon challenges associated with their conditions. Here, the development and characteristics of a clinic designed specifically to provide for the multidisciplinary needs of patients with breast cancer brain metastases are described. This clinic may serve as a model for other institutions interested in creating specialty clinics with similar objectives.

Dataset Information

Supplemental Breast Imaging Utilization After Breast Density Legislation in North Carolina.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Supplemental Breast Imaging Utilization After Breast Density Legislation in North Carolina.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets