1
|
Marsh MW, Benefield TS, Lee S, Pritchard M, Earnhardt K, Agans R, Henderson LM. Availability Versus Utilization of Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening Post Passage of Breast Density Legislation. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2020; 30:579-586. [PMID: 32960137 DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2020.8528] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mary W Marsh
- Department of Radiology, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Thad S Benefield
- Department of Radiology, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Sheila Lee
- Department of Radiology, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Michael Pritchard
- Department of Radiology, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Katie Earnhardt
- Department of Radiology, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Robert Agans
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Louise M Henderson
- Department of Radiology, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.,Department of Epidemiology, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Schoub PK. Breast cancer imaging in South Africa in 2018. SA J Radiol 2018; 22:1666. [PMID: 31754521 PMCID: PMC6837797 DOI: 10.4102/sajr.v22i2.1666] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Peter K Schoub
- Department of Radiology, Parklane Radiology, Johannesburg, South Africa
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Geisel J, Raghu M, Hooley R. The Role of Ultrasound in Breast Cancer Screening: The Case for and Against Ultrasound. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2018; 39:25-34. [DOI: 10.1053/j.sult.2017.09.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 51] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
|
4
|
Guidelines and recommendations for MRI in breast cancer follow-up: A review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2017; 218:5-11. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.09.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/06/2017] [Revised: 09/10/2017] [Accepted: 09/12/2017] [Indexed: 01/06/2023]
|