Journal
JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE
Volume 34, Issue 8, Pages 1441-1451Publisher
SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11606-019-05026-2
Keywords
breast cancer; cancer screening; health communication; health policy; health services research
Funding
- National Cancer Institute [R25 CA92203, 1K07CA215819-01A1, K24CA181510]
- American Cancer Society Cancer Control Career Development Award for Primary Care Physicians
Ask authors/readers for more resources
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 40-64years 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 MeasuresUse 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 6-12months 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.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available