S V de Lange1, M F Bakker1, E M Monninkhof1, P H M Peeters2, P K de Koekkoek-Doll3, R M Mann4, M J C M Rutten5, R H C Bisschops6, J Veltman7, K M Duvivier8, M B I Lobbes9, H J de Koning10, N Karssemeijer4, R M Pijnappel11, W B Veldhuis12, C H van Gils13. 1. Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands. 2. Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom. 3. Department of Radiology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, P.O. Box 90203, 1006 BE Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Radiology, Radboud University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, P.O. Box 90153, 5200 ME 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, P.O. Box 444, 3300 AK Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente (ZGT), P.O. Box 7600, 7600 SZ Almelo, The Netherlands. 8. Department of Radiology, VU University Medical Center, P.O. Box 7057, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 9. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ Maastricht, The Netherlands. 10. Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 11. LRCB - Dutch Expert Centre for Screening, PO Box 6873, 6503 GJ Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands. 12. Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands. 13. Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: c.vangils@umcutrecht.nl.
Abstract
AIM: To determine the willingness of women with extremely dense breasts to undergo breast cancer screening withmagnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in a research setting, and to examine reasons for women to participate or not. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Between 2011 and 2015, 8,061 women (50-75 years) were invited for supplemental MRI as part of the Dense Tissue and Early Breast Neoplasm Screening (DENSE) trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01315015), after a negative screening mammography in the national population-based mammography screening programme. Demographics of participants and non-participants were compared. All invitees were asked to report reasons for (non)participation. Ethical approval was obtained. Participants provided written informed consent. RESULTS: Of the 8,061 invitees, 66% answered that they were interested, and 59% eventually participated. Participants were on average 54-years old (interquartile range: 51-59 years), comparable to women with extremely dense breasts in the population-based screening programme (55 years). Women with higher socio-economic status (SES) were more often interested in participation than women with lower SES (68% versus 59%, p<0.001). The most frequently stated reasons for non-participation were "MRI-related inconveniences and/or self-reported contraindications to MRI" (27%) and "anxiety regarding the result of supplemental screening" (21%). "Expected personal health benefit" (68%) and "contribution to science" (43%) were the most frequent reasons for participation. CONCLUSION: Of women invited for MRI because of extremely dense breasts, 59% participated. Common reasons for non-participation were "MRI-related inconveniences" and "anxiety regarding the result of supplemental screening". In case of future implementation, availability of precise evidence on benefits and harms might reduce this anxiety.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To determine the willingness of women with extremely dense breasts to undergo breast cancer screening with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in a research setting, and to examine reasons for women to participate or not. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2011 and 2015, 8,061 women (50-75 years) were invited for supplemental MRI as part of the Dense Tissue and Early Breast Neoplasm Screening (DENSE) trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01315015), after a negative screening mammography in the national population-based mammography screening programme. Demographics of participants and non-participants were compared. All invitees were asked to report reasons for (non)participation. Ethical approval was obtained. Participants provided written informed consent. RESULTS: Of the 8,061 invitees, 66% answered that they were interested, and 59% eventually participated. Participants were on average 54-years old (interquartile range: 51-59 years), comparable to women with extremely dense breasts in the population-based screening programme (55 years). Women with higher socio-economic status (SES) were more often interested in participation than women with lower SES (68% versus 59%, p<0.001). The most frequently stated reasons for non-participation were "MRI-related inconveniences and/or self-reported contraindications to MRI" (27%) and "anxiety regarding the result of supplemental screening" (21%). "Expected personal health benefit" (68%) and "contribution to science" (43%) were the most frequent reasons for participation. CONCLUSION: Of women invited for MRI because of extremely dense breasts, 59% participated. Common reasons for non-participation were "MRI-related inconveniences" and "anxiety regarding the result of supplemental screening". In case of future implementation, availability of precise evidence on benefits and harms might reduce this anxiety.
Authors: Matthew F Covington; Ephraim E Parent; Elizabeth H Dibble; Gaiane M Rauch; Amy M Fowler Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-12-09 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Wendie A Berg; Elizabeth A Rafferty; Sarah M Friedewald; Carrie B Hruska; Habib Rahbar Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2020-12-23 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Susana I S Patuleia; Cathy B Moelans; Jasmijn Koopman; Julia E C van Steenhoven; Thijs van Dalen; Carmen C van der Pol; Agnes Jager; Margreet G E M Ausems; Paul J van Diest; Elsken van der Wall; Karijn P M Suijkerbuijk Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2022-06-27 Impact factor: 4.638