Loren Saulsberry1, Lydia E Pace2,3, Nancy L Keating4,5. 1. Department of Public Health Sciences, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 2. Division of Women's Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Division of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. keating@hcp.med.harvard.edu. 5. Division of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. keating@hcp.med.harvard.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dense breast tissue increases breast cancer risk and lowers mammography sensitivity, but the value of supplemental imaging for dense breasts remains uncertain. Since 2009, 37 states and Washington DC have passed legislation requiring patient notification about breast density. OBJECTIVE: Examine the effects of state breast density notification laws on use of supplemental breast imaging and breast biopsies. DESIGN: Difference-in-differences analysis of supplemental imaging and biopsies before and after notification laws in 12 states enacting breast density notification laws from 2009 to 2014 and 12 matched control states. Supplemental imaging/biopsy within 6 months following an index mammogram were evaluated during four time periods related to legislation: (1) 6 months before, (2) 0-6 months after, (3) 6-12 months after, and (4) 12-18 months after. PARTICIPANTS: Women ages 40-64 years receiving an initial mammogram in a state that passed a breast density notification law or a control state. INTERVENTION: Mandatory breast density notification following an index mammogram. MAIN MEASURES: Use of breast biopsies and supplemental breast imaging (breast ultrasound, tomosynthesis, magnetic resonance imaging, scintimammography, and thermography), overall and by specific test. KEY RESULTS: Supplemental breast imaging and biopsy increased modestly in states with notification laws and changed minimally in control states. Adjusted rates of supplemental imaging and biopsy within 6 months of mammography before legislation were 8.5% and 3.1%, respectively. Compared with pre-legislation in intervention and control states, legislation was associated with adjusted difference-in-differences estimates of + 1.3% (p < 0.0001) and + 0.4% (p < 0.0001) for supplemental imaging and biopsies, respectively, in the 6-12 months after the law and difference-in-differences estimates of + 3.3% (p < 0.0001) and + 0.8% (p < 0.0001) for supplemental imaging and biopsies, respectively, 12-18 months after the law. CONCLUSIONS: As breast density notification laws are considered, policymakers and clinicians should expect increases in breast imaging/biopsies. Additional research is needed on these laws' effects on cost and patient outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Dense breast tissue increases breast cancer risk and lowers mammography sensitivity, but the value of supplemental imaging for dense breasts remains uncertain. Since 2009, 37 states and Washington DC have passed legislation requiring patient notification about breast density. OBJECTIVE: Examine the effects of state breast density notification laws on use of supplemental breast imaging and breast biopsies. DESIGN: Difference-in-differences analysis of supplemental imaging and biopsies before and after notification laws in 12 states enacting breast density notification laws from 2009 to 2014 and 12 matched control states. Supplemental imaging/biopsy within 6 months following an index mammogram were evaluated during four time periods related to legislation: (1) 6 months before, (2) 0-6 months after, (3) 6-12 months after, and (4) 12-18 months after. PARTICIPANTS: Women ages 40-64 years receiving an initial mammogram in a state that passed a breast density notification law or a control state. INTERVENTION: Mandatory breast density notification following an index mammogram. MAIN MEASURES: Use of breast biopsies and supplemental breast imaging (breast ultrasound, tomosynthesis, magnetic resonance imaging, scintimammography, and thermography), overall and by specific test. KEY RESULTS: Supplemental breast imaging and biopsy increased modestly in states with notification laws and changed minimally in control states. Adjusted rates of supplemental imaging and biopsy within 6 months of mammography before legislation were 8.5% and 3.1%, respectively. Compared with pre-legislation in intervention and control states, legislation was associated with adjusted difference-in-differences estimates of + 1.3% (p < 0.0001) and + 0.4% (p < 0.0001) for supplemental imaging and biopsies, respectively, in the 6-12 months after the law and difference-in-differences estimates of + 3.3% (p < 0.0001) and + 0.8% (p < 0.0001) for supplemental imaging and biopsies, respectively, 12-18 months after the law. CONCLUSIONS: As breast density notification laws are considered, policymakers and clinicians should expect increases in breast imaging/biopsies. Additional research is needed on these laws' effects on cost and patient outcomes.
Entities:
Keywords:
breast cancer; cancer screening; health communication; health policy; health services research
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: S A Feig; G S Shaber; G F Schwartz; A Patchefsky; H I Libshitz; J Edeiken; R Nerlinger; R F Curley; J D Wallace Journal: Radiology Date: 1977-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sarah M Friedewald; Elizabeth A Rafferty; Stephen L Rose; Melissa A Durand; Donna M Plecha; Julianne S Greenberg; Mary K Hayes; Debra S Copit; Kara L Carlson; Thomas M Cink; Lora D Barke; Linda N Greer; Dave P Miller; Emily F Conant Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-06-25 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Brian L Sprague; Ronald E Gangnon; Veronica Burt; Amy Trentham-Dietz; John M Hampton; Robert D Wellman; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-09-12 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Michal Horný; Alan B Cohen; Richard Duszak; Cindy L Christiansen; Michael Shwartz; James F Burgess Journal: Med Care Res Rev Date: 2018-01-19 Impact factor: 3.929
Authors: Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Lindsay M Sabik; Natasha K Stout; Michael T Halpern; Joseph Lipscomb; Scott Ramsey; Debra P Ritzwoller Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr Date: 2022-07-05
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