Literature DB >> 27318582

Impact of the New Jersey Breast Density Law on Imaging and Intervention Volumes and Breast Cancer Diagnosis.

Linda M Sanders1, Alexander B King2, Koren S Goodman3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Increased breast density is acknowledged as an independent risk factor for breast cancer and may obscure malignancy on mammography. Approximately half of all mammograms depict dense breasts. Legislation related to mandatory breast density notification was first enacted in Connecticut in 2009. On May 1, 2014, New Jersey joined other states with similar legislation. The New Jersey breast density law (NJBDL) mandates that mammography reports acknowledge the relevance and masking effect of mammographic breast density. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the NJBDL at one of the state's largest ACR-accredited breast centers.
METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed to determine changes in imaging and intervention utilization and modality of cancer diagnosis after enactment of the legislation. Data for the present study were extracted from a review of all patients with core biopsy-proven malignancy at a large outpatient breast center between November 1, 2012, and October 31, 2015. Data were divided into the 18-month period before the implementation of the NJBDL (November 1, 2012 to April 30, 2014) and the 18-month period after passage of the law (May 1, 2014 to October 31, 2015).
RESULTS: Screening ultrasound increased significantly after the implementation of the NJBDL, by 651% (1,530 vs 11,486). MRI utilization increased by 59.3% (2,595 vs 4,134). A total of 1,213 cancers were included in the final analysis, 592 in the first time period and 621 after law implementation. Breast cancer was most commonly detected on screening mammography, followed by diagnostic mammography with ultrasound for palpable concern, in both time periods. Of the 621 cancers analyzed, 26.1% (n = 162) were found in patients 50 years of age or younger. Results demonstrated that with respect to how malignancies were detected, age and average mammographic density were both statistically significant (P = .002).
CONCLUSIONS: The NJBDL succeeded in publicizing the masking effect of dense breasts. The number of supplemental screening ultrasound and MRI examinations increased after the implementation of this legislation. An efficacy analysis affirmed the high sensitivity of screening MRI compared with other modalities. The use of MRI increased core biopsy efficiency and reduced the number of biopsies needed per cancer diagnosed.
Copyright © 2016 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast; MRI; breast cancer; density; imaging; risk; screening

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27318582     DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2016.05.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol        ISSN: 1546-1440            Impact factor:   5.532


  9 in total

Review 1.  The impact of mandatory mammographic breast density notification on supplemental screening practice in the United States: a systematic review.

Authors:  Meagan Brennan; Brooke Nickel; Shuangqin Huang; Nehmat Houssami
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2021-03-28       Impact factor: 4.872

2.  Performance of Screening Ultrasonography as an Adjunct to Screening Mammography in Women Across the Spectrum of Breast Cancer Risk.

Authors:  Janie M Lee; Robert F Arao; Brian L Sprague; Karla Kerlikowske; Constance D Lehman; Robert A Smith; Louise M Henderson; Garth H Rauscher; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2019-05-01       Impact factor: 21.873

3.  Breast Density Awareness and Knowledge, and Intentions for Breast Cancer Screening in a Diverse Sample of Women Age Eligible for Mammography.

Authors:  Marimer Santiago-Rivas; Shayna Benjamin; Janna Z Andrews; Lina Jandorf
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 2.037

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

Authors:  Sarah J Nyante; Mary W Marsh; Thad Benefield; Kathryn Earnhardt; Sheila S Lee; Louise M Henderson
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2019-07-01       Impact factor: 5.532

5.  A tumor specific antibody to aid breast cancer screening in women with dense breast tissue.

Authors:  Lopamudra Das Roy; Lloye M Dillon; Ru Zhou; Laura J Moore; Chad Livasy; Joe M El-Khoury; Rahul Puri; Pinku Mukherjee
Journal:  Genes Cancer       Date:  2017-03

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

Authors:  Sarah Pirikahu; Helen Lund; Gemma Cadby; Elizabeth Wylie; Jennifer Stone
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2022-01-15       Impact factor: 6.466

7.  Availability Versus Utilization of Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening Post Passage of Breast Density Legislation.

Authors:  Mary W Marsh; Thad S Benefield; Sheila Lee; Michael Pritchard; Katie Earnhardt; Robert Agans; Louise M Henderson
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2020-09-22       Impact factor: 2.681

8.  The Feasibility of Classifying Breast Masses Using a Computer-Assisted Diagnosis (CAD) System Based on Ultrasound Elastography and BI-RADS Lexicon.

Authors:  Eduardo F C Fleury; Ana Claudia Gianini; Karem Marcomini; Vilmar Oliveira
Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2018-01-01

9.  Breast cancer supplemental screening: Women's knowledge and utilization in the era of dense breast legislation.

Authors:  Jenerius A Aminawung; Jessica R Hoag; Kelly A Kyanko; Xiao Xu; Ilana B Richman; Susan H Busch; Cary P Gross
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2020-06-14       Impact factor: 4.452

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.