Literature DB >> 34348958

Breast Density Awareness and Knowledge in a Mammography Screening Cohort of Predominantly Hispanic Women: Does Breast Density Notification Matter?

Jessica D Austin1,2, Mariangela Agovino1, Carmen B Rodriguez1, Mary Beth Terry1,3, Rachel C Shelton2,3, Ying Wei4, Elise Desperito5, Karen M Schmitt3,6, Rita Kukafka2,3,7, Parisa Tehranifar8,3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: New York State law mandates that women with dense breasts receive a written notification of their breast density (BD) and its implications, but data on the impact of dense breast notification (DBN) on BD awareness and knowledge in diverse populations remain limited.
METHODS: Between 2016 and 2018, we collected survey and mammographic data from 666 women undergoing screening mammography in New York City (ages 40-60, 80% Hispanic, 69% Spanish-speaking) to examine the impact of prior DBN on BD awareness by sociodemographic and breast cancer risk factors, and describe BD knowledge by sources of information.
RESULTS: Only 24.8% of the overall sample and 34.9% of women receiving DBN had BD awareness. In multivariable models adjusting for DBN, awareness was significantly lower in women who were Spanish-speaking [OR, 0.16; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.09-0.30 vs. English speakers], were foreign-born (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.16-0.58 vs. U.S.-born), and had lower educational attainment (e.g., high school degree or less; OR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.08-0.26 vs. college or higher degree). Women receiving DBN were more likely to be aware of BD (OR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.59-4.27) but not more knowledgeable about the impact of BD on breast cancer risk and detection. However, women reporting additional communication about their BD showed greater knowledge in these areas.
CONCLUSIONS: DBN increases BD awareness disproportionately across sociodemographic groups. IMPACT: Efforts to improve communication of DBN must focus on addressing barriers in lower socioeconomic and racially and ethnically diverse women, including educational and language barriers. ©2021 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34348958      PMCID: PMC8492494          DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-21-0172

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  42 in total

1.  Association of recall rates with sensitivity and positive predictive values of screening mammography.

Authors:  B C Yankaskas; R J Cleveland; M J Schell; R Kozar
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Awareness of breast density and its impact on breast cancer detection and risk.

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

3.  The Divide Between Breast Density Notification Laws and Evidence-Based Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening: Legislating Practice.

Authors:  Jennifer S Haas; Celia P Kaplan
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 21.873

4.  Systems strategies to support cancer screening in U.S. primary care practice.

Authors:  K Robin Yabroff; Jane Zapka; Carrie N Klabunde; Gigi Yuan; Dennis W Buckman; David Haggstrom; Steven B Clauser; Jacqueline Miller; Stephen H Taplin
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2011-10-05       Impact factor: 4.254

5.  Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually.

Authors:  M H Gail; L A Brinton; D P Byar; D K Corle; S B Green; C Schairer; J J Mulvihill
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1989-12-20       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  A simulation model investigating the impact of tumor volume doubling time and mammographic tumor detectability on screening outcomes in women aged 40-49 years.

Authors:  Stephanie L Bailey; Bronislava M Sigal; Sylvia K Plevritis
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-07-27       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 7.  Addressing Potential Health Disparities in the Adoption of Advanced Breast Imaging Technologies.

Authors:  Randy C Miles; Tracy Onega; Christoph I Lee
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 3.173

8.  Knowledge of Density and Screening Ultrasound.

Authors:  Nitya S Moothathu; Liane E Philpotts; Susan H Busch; Cary P Gross; Lawrence H Staib; Regina J Hooley
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2016-12-10       Impact factor: 2.431

9.  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

10.  The Impact of Breast Density Information or Notification on Women's Cognitive, Psychological, and Behavioral Outcomes: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Brooke Nickel; Tessa Copp; Meagan Brennan; Rachel Farber; Kirsten McCaffery; Nehmat Houssami
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2021-10-01       Impact factor: 13.506

View more
  1 in total

1.  Australian Women's Intentions and Psychological Outcomes Related to Breast Density Notification and Information: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Hankiz Dolan; Kirsten McCaffery; Nehmat Houssami; Erin Cvejic; Meagan Brennan; Jolyn Hersch; Melanie Dorrington; Angela Verde; Lisa Vaccaro; Brooke Nickel
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2022-06-01
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.