Breast Density Awareness and Knowledge in a Mammography Screening Cohort of Predominantly Hispanic Women: Does Breast Density Notification Matter?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
New York State law mandates that women with dense breasts receive a written notification of their breast density (BD) and its implications, but data on the impact of dense breast notification (DBN) on BD awareness and knowledge in diverse populations remain limited.Methods
Between 2016 and 2018, we collected survey and mammographic data from 666 women undergoing screening mammography in New York City (ages 40-60, 80% Hispanic, 69% Spanish-speaking) to examine the impact of prior DBN on BD awareness by sociodemographic and breast cancer risk factors, and describe BD knowledge by sources of information.Results
Only 24.8% of the overall sample and 34.9% of women receiving DBN had BD awareness. In multivariable models adjusting for DBN, awareness was significantly lower in women who were Spanish-speaking [OR, 0.16; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.09-0.30 vs. English speakers], were foreign-born (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.16-0.58 vs. U.S.-born), and had lower educational attainment (e.g., high school degree or less; OR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.08-0.26 vs. college or higher degree). Women receiving DBN were more likely to be aware of BD (OR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.59-4.27) but not more knowledgeable about the impact of BD on breast cancer risk and detection. However, women reporting additional communication about their BD showed greater knowledge in these areas.Conclusions
DBN increases BD awareness disproportionately across sociodemographic groups.Impact
Efforts to improve communication of DBN must focus on addressing barriers in lower socioeconomic and racially and ethnically diverse women, including educational and language barriers.
SUBMITTER: Austin JD
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8492494 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveWomen are increasingly informed about their breast density due to state density reporting laws. However, accuracy of personal breast density knowledge remains unclear. We compared self-reported with clinically assessed breast density and assessed knowledge of density implications and feelings about future screening.MethodsFrom December 2017 to January 2020, we surveyed women aged 40 to 74 years without prior breast cancer, with a normal screening mammogram in the prior year, and ≥1 recorded breast density measures in four Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries with density reporting laws. We measured agreement between self-reported and BI-RADS breast density categorized as "ever-dense" if heterogeneously or extremely dense within the past 5 years or "never-dense" otherwise, knowledge of dense breast implications, and feelings about future screening.ResultsSurvey participation was 28% (1,528 of 5,408), and 59% (896 of 1,528) of participants had ever-dense breasts. Concordance between self-report versus clinical density was 76% (677 of 896) among women with ever-dense breasts and 14% (89 of 632) among women with never-dense breasts, and 34% (217 of 632) with never-dense breasts reported being told they had dense breasts. Desire for supplemental screening was more frequent among those who reported having dense breasts 29% (256 of 893) or asked to imagine having dense breasts 30% (152 of 513) versus those reporting nondense breasts 15% (15 of 102) (P = .003, P = .002, respectively). Women with never-dense breasts had 6.3-fold higher odds (95% confidence interval:3.39-11.80) of accurate knowledge in states reporting density to all compared to states reporting only to women with dense breasts.DiscussionStandardized communications of breast density results to all women may increase density knowledge and are needed to support informed screening decisions.
| S-EPMC9119699 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo date, 38 states have enacted dense breast notification (DBN) laws mandating that mammogram reports include language informing women of risks related to dense breast tissue.ObjectiveNationally representative survey to assess the association between residing in a state with a DBN law and women's awareness and knowledge about breast density, and breast cancer anxiety.DesignInternet survey conducted in 2018 with participants in KnowledgePanel®, an online research panel.ParticipantsEnglish-speaking US women ages 40-59 years without a personal history of breast cancer who had received at least one screening mammogram (N = 1928; survey completion rate 68.2%).Main measures(1) Reported history of increased breast density, (2) knowledge of the increased risk of breast cancer with dense breasts, (3) knowledge of the masking effect of dense breasts on mammography, and (4) breast cancer anxiety.Key resultsWomen residing in DBN states were more likely to report increased breast density (43.6%) compared with women residing in non-DBN states (32.7%, p < 0.01, adjusted odds ratio, 1.70, 95% CI,1.34-2.17). Interaction effect between DBN states and education status showed that the impact of DBN on women's reporting of dense breasts was significant for women with greater than high school education, but not among women with a high school education or less (p value = 0.01 for interaction). Only 23.0% of women overall knew that increased breast density was associated with a higher risk of breast cancer, and 68.0% of women understood that dense breasts decreased the sensitivity of mammography. There were no significant differences between women in DBN states and non-DBN states for these outcomes, or for breast cancer-related anxiety.ConclusionsState DBN laws were not associated with increased understanding of the clinical implications of breast density. DBN laws were associated with a higher likelihood of women reporting increased breast density, though not among women with lower education.
| S-EPMC7351910 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Potential harms of screening mammography include false positive results, such as recall breast imaging or biopsies.Methods: We recruited women undergoing screening mammography at Columbia University Medical Center in New York, New York. They completed a questionnaire on breast cancer risk factors and permitted access to their medical records. Breast cancer risk status was determined using the Gail model and a family history screener. High risk was defined as a 5-year invasive breast cancer risk of ?1.67% or eligible for BRCA genetic testing. False positive results were defined as recall breast imaging (BIRADS score of 0, 3, 4, or 5) and/or biopsies that did not yield breast cancer.Results: From November 2014 to October 2015, 2,361 women were enrolled and 2,019 were evaluable, of whom 76% were Hispanic and 10% non-Hispanic white. Fewer Hispanic women met high-risk criteria for breast cancer than non-Hispanic whites (18.0% vs. 68.1%), but Hispanics more frequently engaged in annual screening (71.9% vs. 60.8%). Higher breast density (heterogeneously/extremely dense vs. mostly fat/scattered fibroglandular densities) and more frequent screening (annual vs. biennial) were significantly associated with false positive results [odds ratio (OR), 1.64; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.32-2.04 and OR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.70-2.80, respectively].Conclusions: We observed that women who screened more frequently or had higher breast density were at greater risk for false positive results. In addition, Hispanic women were screening more frequently despite having a lower risk of breast cancer compared with whites.Impact: Our results highlight the need for risk-stratified screening to potentially minimize the harms of screening mammography. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 27(4); 446-53. ©2018 AACR.
| S-EPMC5884721 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Patient advocacy has led to state-level legislative mandates for the release of personal mammographic breast density information to women undergoing screening mammography. More research is needed to understand the impact of this information on women's perceptions and mammography screening behavior. METHODS:Semistructured interviews were conducted in English and Spanish with 24 self-identified Hispanic women who had undergone at least 1 mammogram since breast density notification was enacted in New York State. The women ranged in age from 43 to 63 years. Women were asked about their understanding and perceptions of the communication of New York State-mandated breast density information, and any actions they have taken or would take in response to this information. A content analysis of the qualitative data from the translated and transcribed interviews was conducted. RESULTS:The majority of participants had no prior knowledge of breast density and expressed confusion and apprehension regarding the meaning of dense breasts when presented with the notification information. Many participants understood having dense breasts to be a serious and abnormal condition, and reported feelings of worry and vulnerability. Participants mostly expressed a strong interest in learning about breast density and obtaining additional and more frequent breast cancer screening tests. These behavioral intentions were consistent with participants' overall favorable view of breast cancer screening and a belief that their faith, as well as regular screening, can help to protect them from breast cancer morbidity and mortality. CONCLUSIONS:Hispanic women conveyed proactive breast cancer screening intentions in response to breast density notification, despite inadequate comprehension of this information and negative emotional responses.
| S-EPMC6541512 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast density categories assigned by interpreting radiologists often influence decisions surrounding supplemental breast cancer screening and risk assessment. The landscape of mammographic screening continuously evolves, and different mammographic screening modalities may result in different perception of density, reflected in different assignment of BI-RADS density categories. Purpose To investigate the effect of screening mammography modality on BI-RADS breast density assessments. Materials and Methods Data were retrospectively analyzed from 24 736 individual women (42.3% [10 455 of 24 736] white women, 57.7% [14 281 of 24 736] black women; mean age, 56.3 years; age range, 40.0-74.9 years) who underwent from one to seven mammographic screening examinations from September 2010 through February 2017 (60 766 examinations). Three screening modalities were used: digital mammography alone (8935 examinations); digital mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT; 30 779 examinations); and synthetic mammography with DBT (21 052 examinations). Random-effects logistic regression analysis was performed to estimate the likelihood of assignment to high versus low BI-RADS density category according to each modality, adjusted for ethnicity, age, body mass index (BMI), and radiologist. The interactions of modality with ethnicity and BMI on density categorization were also tested with the model. Results Women screened with DBT versus digital mammography alone had lower likelihood regarding categorization of high density breasts (digital mammography and DBT vs digital mammography: odds ratio, 0.69 [95% confidence interval: 0.61, 0.80], P < .001; synthetic mammography and DBT vs digital mammography: odds ratio, 0.43 [95% confidence interval: 0.37, 0.50], P < .001). Lower likelihood of high density was also observed at synthetic mammography and DBT compared with digital mammography and DBT (odds ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval: 0.56, 0.69; P < .001). There were interactions of modality with ethnicity (P = .007) and BMI (P = .003) on breast density assessment, with greater differences in density categorization according to modality observed for black women than for white women and groups with higher BMI. Conclusion Breast density categorization may vary by screening mammographic modality, and this effect appears to vary by ethnicity and body mass index. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Philpotts in this issue.
| S-EPMC6493215 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC4564307 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceDigital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) are used for routine breast cancer screening. There is minimal evidence on performance outcomes by age, screening round, and breast density in community practice.ObjectiveTo compare DM vs DBT performance by age, baseline vs subsequent screening round, and breast density category.Design, setting, and participantsThis comparative effectiveness study assessed 1 584 079 screening examinations of women aged 40 to 79 years without prior history of breast cancer, mastectomy, or breast augmentation undergoing screening mammography at 46 participating Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium facilities from January 2010 to April 2018.ExposuresAge, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System breast density category, screening round, and modality.Main outcomes and measuresAbsolute rates and relative risks (RRs) of screening recall and cancer detection.ResultsOf 1 273 492 DM and 310 587 DBT examinations analyzed, 1 028 891 examinations (65.0%) were of white non-Hispanic women; 399 952 women (25.2%) were younger than 50 years; and 671 136 women (42.4%) had heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breasts. Adjusted differences in DM vs DBT performance were largest on baseline examinations: for example, per 1000 baseline examinations in women ages 50 to 59, recall rates decreased from 241 examinations for DM to 204 examinations for DBT (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.98), and cancer detection rates increased from 5.9 with DM to 8.8 with DBT (RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.10-2.08). On subsequent examinations, women aged 40 to 79 years with heterogeneously dense breasts had improved recall rates and improved cancer detection with DBT. For example, per 1000 examinations in women aged 50 to 59 years, the number of recall examinations decreased from 102 with DM to 93 with DBT (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.98), and cancer detection increased from 3.7 with DM to 5.3 with DBT (RR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.23-1.64). Women aged 50 to 79 years with scattered fibroglandular density also had improved recall and cancer detection rates with DBT. Women aged 40 to 49 years with scattered fibroglandular density and women aged 50 to 79 years with almost entirely fatty breasts benefited from improved recall rates without change in cancer detection rates. No improvements in recall or cancer detection rates were observed in women with extremely dense breasts on subsequent examinations for any age group.Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that improvements in recall and cancer detection rates with DBT were greatest on baseline mammograms. On subsequent screening mammograms, the benefits of DBT varied by age and breast density. Women with extremely dense breasts did not benefit from improved recall or cancer detection with DBT on subsequent screening rounds.
| S-EPMC7388021 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHigh participation in mammographic screening is essential for its effectiveness to detect breast cancers early and thereby, improve breast cancer outcomes. Breast density is a strong predictor of breast cancer risk and significantly reduces the sensitivity of mammography to detect the disease. There are increasing mandates for routine breast density notification within mammographic screening programs. It is unknown if breast density notification impacts the likelihood of women returning to screening when next due (i.e. rescreening rates). This study investigates the association between breast density notification and rescreening rates using individual-level data from BreastScreen Western Australia (WA), a population-based mammographic screening program.MethodsWe examined 981,705 screening events from 311,656 women aged 40+ who attended BreastScreen WA between 2008 and 2017. Mixed effect logistic regression was used to investigate the association between rescreening and breast density notification status.ResultsResults were stratified by age (younger, targeted, older) and screening round (first, second, third+). Targeted women screening for the first time were more likely to return to screening if notified as having dense breasts (Percentunadjusted notified vs. not-notified: 57.8% vs. 56.1%; Padjusted = 0.016). Younger women were less likely to rescreen if notified, regardless of screening round (all P < 0.001). There was no association between notification and rescreening in older women (all P > 0.72).ConclusionsBreast density notification does not deter women in the targeted age range from rescreening but could potentially deter younger women from rescreening. These results suggest that all breast density notification messaging should include information regarding the importance of regular mammographic screening to manage breast cancer risk, particularly for younger women. These results will directly inform BreastScreen programs in Australia as well as other population-based screening providers outside Australia who notify women about breast density or are considering implementing breast density notification.
| S-EPMC8760641 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is a lack of evidence around Australian general practitioners' (GPs) views of issues surrounding breast density. The current study aimed to quantitatively assess GPs' current knowledge, understanding, and feelings around breast density information and notification.MethodsThis study involved a cross-sectional survey using an online platform to collect quantitative data from Australian GPs. Survey data were analysed with descriptive statistics.ResultsA total 60 responses from GPs were analysed. Most (n = 58; 97%) had heard or read about breast density and nearly 90% (n = 52; 87%) have had discussions about breast density with patients. Three-quarters (n = 45; 75%) were supportive of making breast density notification mandatory for patients with dense tissue and a similar proportion (n = 45/58; 78%) felt they need or want more education on breast density.ConclusionsThere is strong support for notifying patients of breast density, and interest in further education and training among the surveyed GPs. As GPs play a central role in cancer prevention and control, their involvement in discussions related to breast density notification, evaluation and appraisal of evidence, development of communication strategies, and participation in ongoing research on the topic will be indispensable.
| S-EPMC9332418 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite widespread implementation of mammographic breast density (MBD) notification laws, the impact of these laws on knowledge of MBD and knowledge of breast cancer risk is limited by the lack of tools to promote informed decision-making in practice.ObjectiveTo develop and evaluate whether brief, personalized informational videos following a normal mammogram in addition to a legislatively required letter about MBD result can improve knowledge of MBD and breast cancer risk compared to standard care (i.e., legislatively required letter about MBD included with the mammogram result).Design/participantsProspective randomized controlled trial of English-speaking women, age 40-74 years, without prior history of breast cancer, receiving a screening mammogram with a normal or benign finding (intervention group n = 235, control group n = 224).Interventionbrief (3-5 min) video, personalized to a woman's MBD result and breast cancer risk.Main measuresPrimary outcomes were a woman's knowledge of her MBD and risk of breast cancer. Secondary outcomes included whether a woman reported that she discussed the results of her mammogram with her primary care provider (PCP).Key resultsRelative to women in the control arm, women in the intervention arm had greater improvement in their knowledge of both their personal MBD (intervention pre/post 39.2%/ 77.5%; control pre/post 36.2%/ 37.5%; odds ratio (OR) 5.34 for change for intervention vs. control, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.87-7.36; p < 0.001) and risk of breast cancer (intervention pre/post: 66.8%/74.0%; control pre/post 67.9%/ 65.2%; OR 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09-1.84; p = 0.01). Women in the intervention group were more likely than those in the control group to report discussing the results of their mammogram with their PCP (p = 0.05).ConclusionsBrief, personalized videos following mammography can improve knowledge of MBD and personal risk of breast cancer compared to a legislatively mandated informational letter. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02986360).
| S-EPMC6445917 | biostudies-literature