Impact of Breast Density Notification Legislation on Radiologists’ Practices of Reporting Breast Density: A Multi-State Study

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016152457

Our results suggest that enactment of breast density notification legislation has an immediate small but not long-term impact on the reporting of dense breasts at mammography.

Purpose

To evaluate the impact of breast density notification legislation on breast density reporting by radiologists nationally.

Materials and Methods

The institutional review board exempted this HIPAA-compliant retrospective study from the requirement for informed consent. State-level data over a 5-year period on breast density categorization and breast cancer detection rate were collected from the National Mammography Database (NMD). Z tests were used to calculate differences in proportions.

Results

Facilities in 13 of 17 states that had breast density notification legislation as of 2014 submitted data to the NMD before and after law enactment. A total of 1 333 541 mammographic studies (hereafter called “mammograms”) over a 30-month period, beginning 20 months before and continuing 10 months after law enactment, were included in the analysis. There was a small but statistically significant decrease in the percentage of mammograms reported as showing dense breast tissue (hereafter called “dense mammograms”) in the month before law enactment compared with the month after (43.0% [22 338 of 52 000] vs 40.0% [18 604 of 46 464], P < .001). There was no statistically significant difference in the percentage of mammograms reported as dense in the month before law enactment compared with the 10th month after (43.0% [22 338 of 52 000] vs 42.8% [15 835 of 36 991], P = .65). There were no significant differences in the breast cancer detection rate between the month before and the month after law enactment (3.9 vs 3.8 cancers per 1000 mammograms, P = .79) or between the month before law enactment and the 10th month after (3.9 vs 4.2 cancers per 1000 mammograms, P = .55). In 21 analyzed states without breast density notification legislation, the percentage of mammograms reported as dense did not decrease below 42.8% (43 363 of 101 394) from 2010 to 2014, in contrast to 13 analyzed states with breast density notification legislation, which reached a nadir of 39.3% (20 965 of 53 360) (P < .001).

Conclusion

The percentage of mammograms reported as dense slightly decreased immediately after enactment of breast density notification legislation but then returned to prelegislation percentages within 10 months.

© RSNA, 2016

References

  • 1. Sickles EA, D’Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, et al. ACR BI-RADS mammography. In: ACR BI-RADS Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2013. Google Scholar
  • 2. Freer PE, Slanetz PJ, Haas JS, et al. Breast cancer screening in the era of density notification legislation: summary of 2014 Massachusetts experience and suggestion of an evidence-based management algorithm by multi-disciplinary expert panel. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2015;153(2):455–464. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3. Wang AT, Vachon CM, Brandt KR, Ghosh K. Breast density and breast cancer risk: a practical review. Mayo Clin Proc 2014;89(4):548–557. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4. Freer PE. Mammographic breast density: impact on breast cancer risk and implications for screening. RadioGraphics 2015;35(2):302–315. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 5. Lee CI, Bassett LW, Lehman CD. Breast density legislation and opportunities for patient-centered outcomes research. Radiology 2012;264(3):632–636. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 6. Ray KM, Price ER, Joe BN. Breast density legislation: mandatory disclosure to patients, alternative screening, billing, reimbursement. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015;204(2):257–260. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 7. Price ER, Hargreaves J, Lipson JA, et al. The California breast density information group: a collaborative response to the issues of breast density, breast cancer risk, and breast density notification legislation. Radiology 2013;269(3):887–892. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 8. Are You Dense? Are You Dense Advocacy. http://www.areyoudenseadvocacy.org/. Accessed November 8, 2015. Google Scholar
  • 9. Sullivan CL, Pandya A, Min RJ, Drotman M, Hentel K. The development and implementation of a patient-centered radiology consultation service: a focus on breast density and additional screening options. Clin Imaging 2015;39(5):731–734. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10. Trinh L, Ikeda DM, Miyake KK, et al. Patient awareness of breast density and interest in supplemental screening tests: comparison of an academic facility and a county hospital. J Am Coll Radiol 2015;12(3):249–255. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 11. Gard CC, Aiello Bowles EJ, Miglioretti DL, Taplin SH, Rutter CM. Misclassification of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) mammographic density and implications for breast density reporting legislation. Breast J 2015;21(5):481–489. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12. Pertuz S, McDonald ES, Weinstein SP, Conant EF, Kontos D. Fully automated quantitative estimation of volumetric breast density from digital breast tomosynthesis images: preliminary results and comparison with digital mammography and MR imaging. Radiology 2015 Oct 21:150277. [Epub ahead of print] MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13. Haas JS, Kaplan CP. The divide between breast density notification laws and evidence-based guidelines for breast cancer screening: legislating practice. JAMA Intern Med 2015;175(9):1439–1440. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14. Price ER, Hargreaves J, Lipson JA, et al. Response. Radiology 2014;271(3):927–928. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 15. Gur D, Klym AH, King JL, Bandos AI, Sumkin JH. Impact of the new density reporting laws: radiologist perceptions and actual behavior. Acad Radiol 2015;22(6):679–683. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 16. Sprague BL, Gangnon RE, Burt V, et al. Prevalence of mammographically dense breasts in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014;106(10):dju255. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 17. Gierach GL, Ichikawa L, Kerlikowske K, et al. Relationship between mammographic density and breast cancer death in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012;104(16):1218–1227. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18. Zhang S, Ivy JS, Diehl KM, Yankaskas BC. The association of breast density with breast cancer mortality in African American and white women screened in community practice. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2013;137(1):273–283. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 19. Kerlikowske K, Zhu W, Tosteson AN, et al. Identifying women with dense breasts at high risk for interval cancer: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2015;162(10):673–681. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 20. Nicholson BT, LoRusso AP, Smolkin M, Bovbjerg VE, Petroni GR, Harvey JA. Accuracy of assigned BI-RADS breast density category definitions. Acad Radiol 2006;13(9):1143–1149. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 21. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, et al. Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90(23):1801–1809. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 22. MQSA National Statistics. http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/MammographyQualityStandardsActandProgram/FacilityScorecard/ucm113858.htm. Accessed January 5, 2016. Google Scholar

Article History

Received November 8, 2015; revision requested December 21; revision received January 12, 2016; accepted January 22; final version accepted January 27.
Published online: Mar 28 2016
Published in print: Sept 2016