Dataset Information

The impact of breast density notification on rescreening rates within a population-based mammographic screening program.

ABSTRACT:

Background

High 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.

Methods

We 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.

Results

Results 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 (Percent_unadjusted notified vs. not-notified: 57.8% vs. 56.1%; P_adjusted = 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).

Conclusions

Breast 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.

SUBMITTER: Pirikahu S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8760641 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBecause of the mixed reports from smaller studies, we examined associations of race with mammographic breast density and evaluated racial differences in the determinants of breast density.MethodsParticipants included 37 839 women (23 166 non-Hispanic white and 14 673 African American) receiving screening mammograms at the Joanne Knight Breast Health Center at Washington University School of Medicine from June 2010 to December 2015. Mammographic breast density was assessed using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (5th edition). To determine the association of race and participant characteristics with mammographic breast density, we used multivariable polytomous logistic regression models (reference group: almost entirely fatty).ResultsAfrican American women had increased odds of extremely dense (adjusted odds ratio = 1.31, 95% confidence interval = 1.13 to 1.52) and reduced odds of heterogeneously dense breasts (adjusted odds ratio = 0.91, 95% confidence interval = 0.84 to 0.99) compared with non-Hispanic white women. Altogether, race, parity and age at first birth, current age, current body mass index (BMI), BMI at age 18 years, menarche, family history of breast cancer, oral contraceptive use, alcohol use, and menopausal status explained 33% of the variation in mammographic breast density. Among African American and non-Hispanic white women, these factors explained nearly 28.6% and 33.6% of the variation in mammographic density, respectively. Current BMI provided the greatest explanation of breast density (26.2% overall, 22.2% in African American, and 26.2% in non-Hispanic white women).ConclusionsThe determinants of mammographic breast density were generally similar between African American women and non-Hispanic white women. After adjustments for confounders, African Americans had higher likelihood of extremely dense breasts but lower likelihood of heterogeneously dense breasts. The greatest explanation of breast density was provided by BMI, regardless of race.

Project description:BackgroundAttention in the 2000s on the importance of mammographic density led us to study screening sensitivity, breast cancer incidence, and associations with risk factors by mammographic density in Danish breast cancer screening programs. Here, we summarise our approaches and findings.MethodsDichotomized density codes: fatty, equal to BI-RADS density code 1 and part of 2, and other mixed/dense data from the 1990s-were available from two counties, and BI-RADS density codes from one region were available from 2012/13. Density data were linked with data on vital status, incident breast cancer, and potential risk factors. We calculated screening sensitivity by combining data on screen-detected and interval cancers. We used cohorts to study high density as a predictor of breast cancer risk; cross-sectional data to study the association between life style factors and density, adjusting for age and body mass index (BMI); and time trends to study the prevalence of high density across birth cohorts.ResultsSensitivity decreased with increasing density from 78% in women with BI-RADS 1 to 47% in those with BI-RADS 4. For women with mixed/dense compared with those with fatty breasts, the rate ratio of incident breast cancer was 2.45 (95% CI 2.14-2.81). The percentage of women with mixed/dense breasts decreased with age, but at a higher rate the later the women were born. Among users of postmenopausal hormone therapy, the percentage of women with mixed/dense breasts was higher than in non-users, but the patterns across birth cohorts were similar. The occurrence of mixed/dense breast at screening age decreased by a z-score unit of BMI at age 13-odds ratio (OR) 0.56 (95% CI 0.53-0.58)-and so did breast cancer risk and hazard ratio (HR) 0.92 (95% CI 0.84-1.00), but it changed to HR 1.01 (95% CI 0.93-1.11) when controlled for density. Age and BMI adjusted associations between life style factors and density were largely close to unity; physical activity OR 1.06 (95% CI 0.93-1.21); alcohol consumption OR 1.01 (95% CI 0.81-1.27); air pollution OR 0.96 (95% 0.93-1.01) per 20 ?g/m3; and traffic noise OR 0.94 (95% CI 0.86-1.03) per 10 dB. Weak negative associations were seen for diabetes OR 0.61 (95% CI 0.40-0.92) and cigarette smoking OR 0.86 (95% CI 0.75-0.99), and a positive association was found with hormone therapy OR 1.24 (95% 1.14-1.35).ConclusionOur data indicate that breast tissue in middle-aged women is highly dependent on childhood body constitution while adult life-style plays a modest role, underlying the need for a long-term perspective in primary prevention of breast cancer.

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.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:While Cumulus - a semi-automated method for measuring breast density - is utilised extensively in research, it is labour-intensive and unsuitable for screening programmes that require an efficient and valid measure on which to base screening recommendations. We develop an automated method to measure breast density (AutoDensity) and compare it to Cumulus in terms of association with breast cancer risk and breast cancer screening outcomes. METHODS:AutoDensity automatically identifies the breast area in the mammogram and classifies breast density in a similar way to Cumulus, through a fast, stand-alone Windows or Linux program. Our sample comprised 985 women with screen-detected cancers, 367 women with interval cancers and 4,975 controls (women who did not have cancer), sampled from first and subsequent screening rounds of a film mammography screening programme. To test the validity of AutoDensity, we compared the effect estimates using AutoDensity with those using Cumulus from logistic regression models that tested the association between breast density and breast cancer risk, risk of small and large screen-detected cancers and interval cancers, and screening programme sensitivity (the proportion of cancers that are screen-detected). As a secondary analysis, we report on correlation between AutoDensity and Cumulus measures. RESULTS:AutoDensity performed similarly to Cumulus in all associations tested. For example, using AutoDensity, the odds ratios for women in the highest decile of breast density compared to women in the lowest quintile for invasive breast cancer, interval cancers, large and small screen-detected cancers were 3.2 (95% CI 2.5 to 4.1), 4.7 (95% CI 3.0 to 7.4), 6.4 (95% CI 3.7 to 11.1) and 2.2 (95% CI 1.6 to 3.0) respectively. For Cumulus the corresponding odds ratios were: 2.4 (95% CI 1.9 to 3.1), 4.1 (95% CI 2.6 to 6.3), 6.6 (95% CI 3.7 to 11.7) and 1.3 (95% CI 0.9 to 1.8). Correlation between Cumulus and AutoDensity measures was 0.63 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Based on the similarity of the effect estimates for AutoDensity and Cumulus inmodels of breast density and breast cancer risk and screening outcomes, we conclude that AutoDensity is a valid automated method for measuring breast density from digitised film mammograms.