Breast Density Legislation in New England: A Survey Study of Practicing Radiologists

Breast cancer risk characteristics of women undergoing whole-breast ultrasound screening versus mammography alone

BACKGROUND

There are no consensus guidelines for supplemental breast cancer screening with whole-breast ultrasound. However, criteria for women at high risk of mammography screening failures (interval invasive cancer or advanced cancer) have been identified. Mammography screening failure risk was evaluated among women undergoing supplemental ultrasound screening in clinical practice compared with women undergoing mammography alone.

METHODS

A total of 38,166 screening ultrasounds and 825,360 screening mammograms without supplemental screening were identified during 2014-2020 within three Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) registries. Risk of interval invasive cancer and advanced cancer were determined using BCSC prediction models. High interval invasive breast cancer risk was defined as heterogeneously dense breasts and BCSC 5-year breast cancer risk ≥2.5% or extremely dense breasts and BCSC 5-year breast cancer risk ≥1.67%. Intermediate/high advanced cancer risk was defined as BCSC 6-year advanced breast cancer risk ≥0.38%.

RESULTS

A total of 95.3% of 38,166 ultrasounds were among women with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts, compared with 41.8% of 825,360 screening mammograms without supplemental screening (p < .0001). Among women with dense breasts, high interval invasive breast cancer risk was prevalent in 23.7% of screening ultrasounds compared with 18.5% of screening mammograms without supplemental imaging (adjusted odds ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.30-1.39); intermediate/high advanced cancer risk was prevalent in 32.0% of screening ultrasounds versus 30.5% of screening mammograms without supplemental screening (adjusted odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.89-0.94).

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrasound screening was highly targeted to women with dense breasts, but only a modest proportion were at high mammography screening failure risk. A clinically significant proportion of women undergoing mammography screening alone were at high mammography screening failure risk.

Physicians' perceptions of breast density notification laws and appropriate patient follow-up

Breast density notification laws have been adopted in the absence of consistent guidelines for post-notification follow-up. This can lead to inconsistent and potentially deficient management of women's health due to inconsistent physician practices. We examined physicians' knowledge and practices regarding follow-up for patients who receive density notifications. Physicians who referred patients to a Michigan hospital network for screening mammograms were recruited to participate in survey study; 105 (29.8%) responded. The survey assessed physicians' demographics, knowledge, and awareness of breast density and breast cancer risk and of density notification laws, and perceptions of appropriate follow-up behaviors for their patients who received density notifications. Most physicians (75%) knew about the notification law, and they were generally comfortable responding to breast density questions and deciding on follow-up. Most indicated that additional breast imaging (68.0%), followed by assessing breast cancer risk (24.7%) were appropriate follow-up responses. Physicians who performed breast cancer risk assessments, and who were more comfortable with breast density questions and follow-up decision making, were more likely to propose additional imaging. Male physicians were less likely to propose assessing breast cancer risk, and less likely to propose clinical and/or breast self-examinations. Divergence between practice and guidelines when it comes to supplemental breast cancer screening, coupled with density notification language that promotes additional screening in the absence of consistent evidence, remains concerning. Improved understanding of how density notification recipients and their physicians make decisions about supplemental screening is warranted to ensure that breast cancer risk is properly considered.

Effect of Personalized Breast Cancer Risk Tool on Chemoprevention and Breast Imaging: ENGAGED-2 Trial

Background

Limited evidence exists about how to communicate breast density-informed breast cancer risk to women at elevated risk to motivate cancer prevention.

Methods

We conducted a randomized controlled trial evaluating a web-based intervention incorporating personalized breast cancer risk, information on chemoprevention, and values clarification on chemoprevention uptake vs active control. Eligible women aged 40-69 years with normal mammograms and elevated 5-year breast cancer risk were recruited from Kaiser Permanente Washington from February 2017 to May 2018. Chemoprevention uptake was measured as any prescription for raloxifene or tamoxifen within 12 months from baseline in electronic health record pharmacy data. Secondary outcomes included breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), mammography use, self-reported distress, and communication with providers. We calculated unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) using logistic regression models and mean differences using analysis of covariance models with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with generalized estimating equations.

Results

We randomly assigned 995 women to the intervention arm (n = 492) or control arm (n = 503). The intervention (vs control) had no effect on chemoprevention uptake (OR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.07 to 16.62). The intervention increased breast MRI use (OR = 5.65, 95% CI = 1.61 to 19.74) while maintaining annual mammography (OR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.75 to 1.28). Women in the intervention (vs control) arm had 5.67-times higher odds of having discussed chemoprevention or breast MRI with provider by 6 weeks (OR = 5.67, 95% CI = 2.47 to 13.03) and 2.36-times higher odds by 12 months (OR = 2.36, 95% CI = 1.65 to 3.37). No measurable differences in distress were detected.

Conclusions

A web-based, patient-level intervention activated women at elevated 5-year breast cancer risk to engage in clinical discussions about chemoprevention, but uptake remained low.

Availability Versus Utilization of Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening Post Passage of Breast Density Legislation

Objective: Despite the lack of evidence that supplemental screening in women with dense breasts reduces breast cancer mortality, 38 states have passed breast density legislation, with some including recommendations for supplemental screening. The objective of this study is to compare the availability versus use of supplemental breast cancer screening modalities and determine factors driving use of supplemental screening in rural versus urban settings. Methods: A 50-item mailed survey using the Tailored Design Method was sent to American College of Radiology mammography-accredited facilities in North Carolina in 2017. Respondents included 94 facilities (48 rural and 46 urban locations). Survey questions focused on breast cancer and supplemental screening services, breast density, risk factors/assessment, and facility demographics. Results: The survey response rate was 60.3% (94/156). Among the 94 respondents, 64.0% (n = 60) reported availability of any type of supplemental screening (digital breast tomosynthesis [DBT], ultrasound, or magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]). In facilities where supplemental screening modalities were available, the most commonly utilized supplemental screening modality was DBT (96.4%), compared with ultrasound (35.7%) and MRI (46.7%). Facilities reported using supplemental screening based on patient breast density (48.3%), referring physician recommendation (63.3%), reading radiologist recommendation (63.3%), breast cancer risk factors (48.3%), and patient request (40.0%). Urban facilities were more likely than rural facilities to base supplemental screening on breast cancer risk factors (62.5% vs. 32.1%; p-value = 0.019), referring physician (75.0% vs. 50.0%; p-value = 0.045), and reading radiologist (78.1% vs. 46.4%; p-value = 0.011). Conclusion: In our study, supplemental screening modalities were widely available, with facilities more likely to use DBT for supplemental screening compared to other modalities.

Prior breast density awareness, knowledge, and communication in a health system-embedded behavioral intervention trial

BACKGROUND

Breast density is an important breast cancer risk factor and a focus of recent national and state health policy efforts. This article describes breast density awareness, knowledge, and communication among participants in a health system-embedded trial with clinically elevated breast cancer risk 1 year before state-mandated density disclosure.

METHODS

Trial participants' demographics and prior health history were ascertained from electronic health records. The proportions of women reporting prior breast density awareness, knowledge of density's masking effect, and communication with a provider about their own breast density were calculated using baseline interview data collected from 2017 to 2018. Multiple logistic regression was used to estimate associations between women's characteristics and density awareness, knowledge, and communication.

RESULTS

Although the overwhelming majority of participants had heard of breast density (91%) and were aware of breast density's masking effect (87%), only 60% had ever discussed their breast density with a provider. Annual mammography screening was associated with prior breast density awareness (odds ratio [OR], 2.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.29-6.81), knowledge (OR, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.20-6.66), and communication (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.34-6.16) compared with an infrequent or unknown screening interval. Receipt of breast biopsy was also associated with prior knowledge (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.04-2.45) and communication (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.00-1.85).

CONCLUSIONS

Breast density awareness and knowledge are high among insured women participating in clinical research, even in the absence of mandated density disclosure. Patient-provider communication about personal density status is less common, particularly among women with fewer interactions with breast health specialists.

Screening Guidelines and Supplemental Screening Tools: Assessment of the Adequacy of Patient-Provider Discussions

PURPOSE

To assess breast imaging radiologists' perceptions of the adequacy of provider-patient discussions regarding the benefits and risks of screening mammography and supplemental screening in women with elevated risk and dense breasts.

METHODS

A 36-item questionnaire developed by the Society of Breast Imaging Patient Care and Delivery Task Force was distributed electronically to Society of Breast Imaging members to evaluate patient communication, education, and screening practices. Data from the 11 items specifically pertaining to screening practices were analyzed.

RESULTS

The response rate was 14% (275/1992). Seventy-four percent of survey respondents perceived provider-patient discussions regarding mammography screening guidelines as inadequate, and they agreed that provider-patient discussions regarding screening guidelines (82%) and supplemental screening for increased breast density (74%) should be standardized. Only 38% indicated that mammography screening guidelines are officially endorsed by their institution. Similarly, 37% reported that recommendations were up to the primary provider. Although most respondents include information about breast density in lay letters (73%) and radiology reports (89%), many feel that further patient education regarding breast density, supplemental screening, risk assessment, and screening guidelines should be performed by radiologists, and they are willing to provide additional patient education in these areas in practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Survey respondents perceived current provider-patient discussions about the risks and benefits of breast cancer mammography screening and supplemental screening as inadequate and felt that standards should be developed. Respondents reported a willingness to take on patient education as part of their daily practice. These findings could inform future initiatives for radiologists to contribute to enhancing provider-patient education.

Supplemental Screening for Women with Dense Breasts: What Do Practicing Radiologists Recommend?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate radiologists' supplemental screening recommendations for women with dense breasts, at average, intermediate, or high risk of breast cancer, and to determine if there are differences between their recommendations for their patients, their friends and family, and themselves.

METHODS

This is an anonymous survey of Society of Breast Imaging (SBI) members. Demographics, knowledge of breast density as a risk factor, and recommendations for screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), ultrasound (US), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in women with dense breasts, at average, intermediate, or high- risk of breast cancer were assessed. The likelihood of their recommending the screening test for their patients, their family and friends, and themselves was assessed on a Likert scale from 0 to 4 (0 = "not at all likely" to 4 = "extremely likely").

RESULTS

There were 295 responses: 67% were women, and breast imaging comprised 95% of their practice. Among participants, 53% correctly answered the question on relative risk of breast cancer when comparing extremely dense versus fatty breasts, and 57% when comparing heterogeneously dense versus scattered breasts. US is recommended at a relatively low rate (1.0-1.4 on the 0-4 scale), regardless of risk. DBT is recommended at a relatively high rate (2.5-3.0 on the 0-4 scale), regardless of risk status. MR is recommended mainly for those at high risk (3.6 on the 0-4 scale). Radiologists were more likely to recommend additional imaging for themselves than for their patients and their family and friends.

CONCLUSION

For women with dense breasts, radiologists are "somewhat likely" to recommend US and "likely" to "very likely" to recommend DBT regardless of risk group. They are "very likely" to recommend MRI for high-risk groups.

Breast Density Awareness and Knowledge, and Intentions for Breast Cancer Screening in a Diverse Sample of Women Age Eligible for Mammography

The objectives of this study were to assess breast density knowledge and breast density awareness, and to identify information associated with intention to complete routine and supplemental screening for breast cancer in a diverse sample of women age eligible for mammography. We quantitatively (self-report) assessed breast density awareness and knowledge (N = 264) in black (47.7%), Latina (35.2%), and white (17%) women recruited online and in the community. Most participants reported having heard about breast density (69.2%); less than one third knew their own breast density status (30.4%). Knowing their own breast density, believing that women should be notified of their breast density in their mammogram report, and feeling informed if being provided this information are associated with likelihood of completing mammogram. Intending mammogram completion and knowledge regarding the impact of breast density on mammogram accuracy are associated with likelihood of completing supplemental ultrasound tests of the breast. These findings help inform practitioners and policy makers about information and communication factors that influence breast cancer screening concerns and decisions. Knowing this information should prepare practitioners to better identify women who may have not been exposed to breast density messages.

The impact of legislation mandating breast density notification - Review of the evidence

Breast density (BD) is an independent risk factor for breast cancer and reduces the sensitivity of mammography. The enactment of BD legislation in a majority of states in the USA mandating notification of risks associated with BD directly to women undergoing mammography has catapulted interest in BD among women, physicians, and policymakers. We therefore report a descriptive review of the evidence on the impact of enactment of BD legislation. Based on 22 eligible studies, we identified four broad themes of research: studies of the impact on screening rates, most showing increased utilisation of supplemental screening; studies exploring the effect on women, radiologists, or primary physicians (reporting heterogeneous effects on knowledge, awareness, perceptions, attitudes and behaviour; and changes in practice); few studies assessing the population impact (effect on screening outcomes or breast cancer stage); and studies of costs highlighting the economic burden from supplemental screening. Given that many of the studies were retrospective single institution studies (comparing pre- and post-legislation) or small surveys with a paucity of population-level studies, we highlight areas meriting additional research. The information described in this review can inform research priorities where BD legislation has been introduced and can be used to guide world-wide policy or practice decisions where BD legislation may be under debate or contemplation.