Literature DB >> 32926413

Understanding the response of mammography facilities to breast density notification.

Louise M Henderson1,2, Mary W Marsh1, Kathryn Earnhardt1, Michael Pritchard1, Thad S Benefield1, Robert P Agans3, Sheila S Lee1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: State-specific breast density notification legislation requires that women undergoing mammography be informed about breast density, with variation among states. Because mammography facilities are among the main points of contact for women undergoing mammography, research is needed to understand how facilities communicate information on breast density, cancer risk, and supplemental screening to women.
METHODS: A cross-sectional, 50-item, mailed survey of 156 American College of Radiology-certified mammography facilities in North Carolina was conducted in 2017 via the Tailored Design Method. Breast density notification practices, supplemental screening services, and patient educational materials were compared by supplemental screening availability via t tests and chi-square tests.
RESULTS: All responding facilities (n = 94; 60.3% response rate) notified women of their breast density in the mammography results letter. Breast cancer risk assessments were performed by 36.2% of the facilities, with risk information communicated in the final radiology report for the referring provider to discuss with the woman (79.4%) or in the results letter (58.8%). Supplemental breast cancer screening was offered by 63.8% of the facilities, with use based on multiple factors, including recommendations from the referring physician (63.3%) or reading radiologist (63.3%), breast density (48.3%), other risk factors (48.3%), and patient request (40.0%). Although 75.0% of the facilities offered breast density educational materials, only 36.6% offered educational materials on supplemental screening.
CONCLUSIONS: In a state with a breast density notification law, mammography facilities communicate breast density, cancer risk, and supplemental screening information to women through various approaches. When supplemental screening is offered, facilities use multiple decision-making criteria rather than breast density alone.
© 2020 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  breast density; breast neoplasms; mammography; mass screening; risk assessment

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32926413      PMCID: PMC7944399          DOI: 10.1002/cncr.33198

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  24 in total

1.  New Federal Requirements to Inform Patients About Breast Density: Will They Help Patients?

Authors:  Nancy L Keating; Lydia E Pace
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2019-06-18       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 2.  Supplemental Screening for Breast Cancer in Women With Dense Breasts: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

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

3.  Content, Readability, and Understandability of Dense Breast Notifications by State.

Authors:  Nancy R Kressin; Christine M Gunn; Tracy A Battaglia
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2016-04-26       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Automated Volumetric Breast Density Measurements in the Era of the BI-RADS Fifth Edition: A Comparison With Visual Assessment.

Authors:  Ji Hyun Youk; Hye Mi Gweon; Eun Ju Son; Jeong-Ah Kim
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2016-03-02       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  Comparison of mammographic density estimation by Volpara software with radiologists' visual assessment: analysis of clinical-radiologic factors affecting discrepancy between them.

Authors:  Han Na Lee; Yu-Mee Sohn; Kyung Hwa Han
Journal:  Acta Radiol       Date:  2014-10-22       Impact factor: 1.990

6.  Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-09-16       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Racial Differences in Quantitative Measures of Area and Volumetric Breast Density.

Authors:  Anne Marie McCarthy; Brad M Keller; Lauren M Pantalone; Meng-Kang Hsieh; Marie Synnestvedt; Emily F Conant; Katrina Armstrong; Despina Kontos
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2016-04-29       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Factors contributing to mammography failure in women aged 40-49 years.

Authors:  Diana S M Buist; Peggy L Porter; Constance Lehman; Stephen H Taplin; Emily White
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2004-10-06       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Impact of Breast Density Legislation on Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Supplemental Screening: A Survey of 110 Radiology Facilities.

Authors:  Lina Nayak; Kanae K Miyake; Jessica W T Leung; Elissa R Price; Yueyi I Liu; Bonnie N Joe; Edward A Sickles; William R Thomas; Jafi A Lipson; Bruce L Daniel; Jonathan Hargreaves; R James Brenner; Lawrence W Bassett; Haydee Ojeda-Fournier; Karen K Lindfors; Stephen A Feig; Debra M Ikeda
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2016-06-14       Impact factor: 2.431

10.  Using clinical factors and mammographic breast density to estimate breast cancer risk: development and validation of a new predictive model.

Authors:  Jeffrey A Tice; Steven R Cummings; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Laura Ichikawa; William E Barlow; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-03-04       Impact factor: 25.391

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.