Susan H Busch1, Jessica R Hoag1, Jenerius A Aminawung1, Xiao Xu1, Ilana B Richman1, Pamela R Soulos1, Kelly A Kyanko1, Cary P Gross1. 1. Susan H. Busch is with the Department of Health Policy and Management, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT. Jessica R. Hoag, Jenerius A. Aminawung, Pamela R. Soulos, and Cary P. Gross are with Department of Internal Medicine, Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven. Xiao Xu is with the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Yale School of Medicine. Ilana B. Richman is with the Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine. Kelly A. Kyanko is with the Department of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the association of state dense breast notification (DBN) laws with use of supplemental tests and cancer diagnosis after screening mammography. METHODS: We examined screening mammograms (n = 1 441 544) performed in 2014 and 2015 among privately insured women aged 40 to 59 years living in 9 US states that enacted DBN laws in 2014 to 2015 and 25 US states with no DBN law in effect. DBN status at screening mammography was categorized as no DBN, generic DBN, and DBN that mandates notification of possible benefits of supplemental screening (DBN+SS). We used logistic regression to examine the change in rate of supplemental ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, breast biopsy, and breast cancer detection. RESULTS: DBN+SS laws were associated with 10.5 more ultrasounds per 1000 mammograms (95% CI = 3.0, 17.6 per 1000; P = .006) and 0.37 more breast cancers detected per 1000 mammograms (95% CI = 0.05, 0.69 per 1000; P = .02) compared with no DBN law. No significant differences were found for generic DBN laws in either ultrasound or cancer detection. CONCLUSIONS: DBN legislation is associated with increased use of ultrasound and cancer detection after implementation only when notification of the possible benefits of supplemental screening is required.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the association of state dense breast notification (DBN) laws with use of supplemental tests and cancer diagnosis after screening mammography. METHODS: We examined screening mammograms (n = 1 441 544) performed in 2014 and 2015 among privately insured women aged 40 to 59 years living in 9 US states that enacted DBN laws in 2014 to 2015 and 25 US states with no DBN law in effect. DBN status at screening mammography was categorized as no DBN, generic DBN, and DBN that mandates notification of possible benefits of supplemental screening (DBN+SS). We used logistic regression to examine the change in rate of supplemental ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, breast biopsy, and breast cancer detection. RESULTS:DBN+SS laws were associated with 10.5 more ultrasounds per 1000 mammograms (95% CI = 3.0, 17.6 per 1000; P = .006) and 0.37 more breast cancers detected per 1000 mammograms (95% CI = 0.05, 0.69 per 1000; P = .02) compared with no DBN law. No significant differences were found for generic DBN laws in either ultrasound or cancer detection. CONCLUSIONS:DBN legislation is associated with increased use of ultrasound and cancer detection after implementation only when notification of the possible benefits of supplemental screening is required.
Authors: Deborah J Rhodes; Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Jeanette Y Ziegenfuss; Sarah M Jenkins; Celine M Vachon Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-03-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Joy Melnikow; Joshua J Fenton; Evelyn P Whitlock; Diana L Miglioretti; Meghan S Weyrich; Jamie H Thompson; Kunal Shah Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Heidi D Nelson; Bernadette Zakher; Amy Cantor; Rongwei Fu; Jessica Griffin; Ellen S O'Meara; Diana S M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2012-05-01 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Brian L Sprague; Natasha K Stout; Clyde Schechter; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Mucahit Cevik; Oguzhan Alagoz; Christoph I Lee; Jeroen J van den Broek; Diana L Miglioretti; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Harry J de Koning; Karla Kerlikowske; Constance D Lehman; Anna N A Tosteson Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-02-03 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Wendie A Berg; Jeffrey D Blume; Jean B Cormack; Ellen B Mendelson; Daniel Lehrer; Marcela Böhm-Vélez; Etta D Pisano; Roberta A Jong; W Phil Evans; Marilyn J Morton; Mary C Mahoney; Linda Hovanessian Larsen; Richard G Barr; Dione M Farria; Helga S Marques; Karan Boparai Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-05-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Joshua J Fenton; Weiwei Zhu; Steven Balch; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Paul Fishman; Rebecca A Hubbard Journal: Med Care Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Lindsay M Sabik; Kirsten Y Eom; Bassam Dahman; Jie Li; Nengliang Yao; G J van Londen; Cathy J Bradley Journal: Med Care Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Mustapha Abubakar; Shaoqi Fan; Erin Aiello Bowles; Lea Widemann; Máire A Duggan; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Roni T Falk; Scott Lawrence; Kathryn Richert-Boe; Andrew G Glass; Teresa M Kimes; Jonine D Figueroa; Thomas E Rohan; Gretchen L Gierach Journal: JNCI Cancer Spectr Date: 2021-02-06
Authors: Karen J Wernli; Erin A Bowles; Sarah Knerr; Kathleen A Leppig; Kelly Ehrlich; Hongyuan Gao; Marc D Schwartz; Suzanne C O'Neill Journal: Perm J Date: 2020-12
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
Authors: Nkengafac Villyen Motaze; Primus Che Chi; Pierre Ongolo-Zogo; Jean Serge Ndongo; Charles S Wiysonge Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-02-22