Breast Density Legislation Research Articles

Breast Cancer Screening in Women With Dense Breasts: Current Status and Future Directions for Appropriate Risk Stratification and Imaging Utilization.

Breast density continues to be a prevailing topic in the field of breast imaging, with continued complexities contributing to overall confusion and controversy among patients and the medical community. In this article, we explore the current status of breast cancer screening in women with dense breasts including breast density legislation. Risk-based approaches to supplemental screening may be more financially cost-effective. While all advanced imaging modalities detect additional primarily invasive, node-negative cancers, the degree to which this occurs can vary by density category. Future directions include expanding the use of density-inclusive risk models with appropriate risk stratification and imaging utilization. Further research is needed, however, to better understand how to optimize population-based screening programs with knowledge of patients' individualized risk, including breast density assessment, to improve the benefit-to-harm ratio of breast cancer screening.

Breast Density Legislation Impact on Breast Cancer Screening and Risk Assessment.

To evaluate breast density notification legislation (BDNL) on breast imaging practice patterns, risk assessment, and supplemental screening. A 20-question anonymous web-based survey was administered to practicing Society of Breast Imaging radiologists in the U.S. between February and April 2021 regarding breast cancer risk assessment, supplemental screening, and density measurements. Results were compared between facilities with and without BDNL using the two-sided Fisher's exact test. One hundred and ninety-seven radiologists from 41 U.S. states, with (187/197, 95%) or without (10/197, 5%) BDNL, responded. Fifty-seven percent (113/197) performed breast cancer risk assessment, and 93% (183/197) offered supplemental screening for women with dense breasts. Between facilities with or without BDNL, there was no significant difference in whether risk assessment was (P = 0.19) or was not performed (P = 0.20). There was no significant difference in supplemental screening types (P > 0.05) between BDNL and non-BDNL facilities. Thirty-five percent (69/197) of facilities offered no supplemental screening studies, and 25% (49/197) had no future plans to offer supplemental screening. A statistically significant greater proportion of non-BDNL facilities offered no supplemental screening (P < 0.03) and had no plans to offer supplemental screening compared to BDNL facilities (P < 0.02). Facilities in BDNL states often offer supplemental screening compared to facilities in non-BDNL states. Compared to BDNL facilities, a statistically significant proportion of non-BDNL facilities had no supplemental screening nor plans for implementation. Our data suggest that upcoming federal BDNL will impact how supplemental screening is addressed in currently non-BDNL states.

Impact of a deep learning model to reduce variation and costs of federally mandated breast density legislation.

1550 Background: Dense breast tissue is an independent risk factor for malignancy and can mask cancers on mammography. Yet, radiologist-assessed mammographic breast density is subjective and varies widely between and within radiologists. Our deep learning (DL) model was implemented into routine clinical practice at an academic breast imaging center and was externally validated at a separate community practice, with both sites demonstrating high clinical acceptance of the model’s density predictions. The aim of this study is to demonstrate the influence our DL model has on prospective radiologist density assessments in routine clinical practice. Methods: This IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant retrospective study identified consecutive screening mammograms without exclusion performed across three clinical sites, over two time periods: pre-DL model implementation (January 1, 2017 through September 30, 2017) and post-DL model implementation (January 1, 2019 through September 30, 2019). Clinical sites were as follows: Site A (the academic practice where the DL model was developed and was implemented in late 2017); Site B (an affiliated community practice which implemented the DL model in late 2017 and was used for external validation); and Site C (an affiliated community practice which was never exposed to the DL model). Patient demographics and radiologist-assessed mammographic breast densities were compared over time and across sites. Patient characteristics were evaluated using Wilcoxon test and Pearson’s chi-squared test. Multivariable logistic regression models evaluated the odds of a dense breast classification as a function of time period (pre-DL vs post-DL), race (White vs non-White) and site. Results: A total of 85,865 consecutive screening mammograms across the three clinical sites were identified. After controlling for age and race, adjusted odds ratios (aOR) of a mammogram being classified as dense at Site C compared to Site B before the DL model was implemented was 2.01 (95% CI 1.873, 2.157, p&lt;0.001). This increased to 2.827 (95% CI 2.636, 3.032, p&lt; 0.001) after DL implementation. The aOR of a mammogram being classified as dense at Site A after implementation compared to before implementation was 0.924 (95% CI 0.885, 0.964, p&lt;0.001). Conclusions: Our findings suggest implementation of the DL model influences radiologist’s prospective density assessments in routine clinical practice by reducing the odds of a screening exam being categorized as dense. As a result, clinical use of our model could reduce downstream costs of supplemental screening tests and limit unnecessary high-risk clinic evaluations.[Table: see text]

Abstract PO-079: Mixed success and persistent disparities in outcomes related to breast density legislation: A national survey

Abstract Little is known about whether women residing in states with mandated dense breast notification (DBN) have improved awareness, knowledge, or discussion with their doctors, or whether there are disparities by sociodemographic characteristics. We conducted a cross-sectional, national telephone survey to assess the primary outcomes intended by DBN legislation: informing women about personal breast density, increasing awareness of its making effect and association with increased cancer risk, and prompting discussions with providers. Specific efforts were made to include women from all race/ethnic groups, education strata, and literacy levels. Women aged &amp;gt;40 reporting a mammogram in &amp;lt;2 years, with no prior breast cancer diagnosis and having heard of the term ‘breast density’ were eligible. We conducted chi-square analyses for each outcome, comparing each by state DBN legislation status, age, income, race/ethnicity, health literacy, and two clinical breast cancer risk factors (family history, prior breast biopsy). Paired comparisons within each sociodemographic factor were tested using Z-tests (α=0.05). Multivariable, binary logistic regressions predicted each outcome using all variables above entered simultaneously as predictors. Secondary analyses tested whether sociodemographic differences in outcomes were moderated by state DBN status via interaction terms. The sample included 2,306 women; 1,782 residing in DBN states and 524 in non-DBN states. Half of the participants were white (50.3%), 23.1% non-Hispanic black, 14% Hispanic, 8.2% Asian, and 4.4% ‘other’. Women in DBN states were 1.55 (95% CI = 1.20, 1.99) times more likely to have received personal breast density information compared to women in non-DBN states after controlling for sociodemographic and risk factors. Those with lower incomes, Asian women, and those with lower health literacy were less likely to report receiving personal breast density information. Overall, 39% had a discussion with their provider about breast density, with women in DBN states being 1.82 times more likely to have done so (95% CI= 1.40, 2.37). There were no differences between women in DBN vs. non-DBN states related to knowledge of masking bias (OR=.99, 0.71, 1.39) or understanding that breast density is a cancer risk factor (OR=0.93, 0.71, 1.22). Hispanic and lower income women had less knowledge about these topics. Interaction models failed to reveal moderating effects of state DBN status, indicating that DBN legislation does not appear to be mitigating or worsening the observed sociodemographic differences. Findings suggest that mandated DBNs have had partial success informing women about their breast density. However, we saw few indications that DBNs increased knowledge and observed less knowledge among women with low income, racial/ethnic minority status and lower literacy. This ‘one size fits all’ policy approach to relaying breast density information appears to be inadequate in reducing disparities in breast density awareness and knowledge. Citation Format: Nancy R. Kressin, Jolie Wormwood, Tracy A. Battaglia, Priscilla J. Slanetz, Christine M. Gunn. Mixed success and persistent disparities in outcomes related to breast density legislation: A national survey [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Conference: Thirteenth AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2020 Oct 2-4. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020;29(12 Suppl):Abstract nr PO-079.

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.

Will the Effect of New Federal Breast Density Legislation Be Diminished by Currently Available Online Patient Educational Materials?

To evaluate readability of commonly accessed online patient educational materials (OPEM) on breast density in setting of recently passed federal breast density legislation. The term "breast density" was queried using an online search engine to identify the top 50 commonly accessed websites based on order of search results on December 15, 2018. Location, cookies, and user account information were disabled prior to our query. Only websites with OPEM, defined as any educational material on breast density targeted towards the general public, were evaluated in our study. Sponsored hits and research journal articles were excluded. Available patient-directed information from websites meeting inclusion criteria was then downloaded. Grade-level readability was then determined from formatted content using generalized estimating equations, with observations nested within readability metrics from each website. Results were compared to American Medical Association recommended readability parameters (sixth-grade reading level). All interval estimates were calculated for 95% confidence. Fouty-one websites met inclusion criteria representing patient-directed OPEM on breast density. Average grade-level readability of health information on breast density in our study ranged from 8.5-16.5 years with an average grade reading level of 11.1 years across all websites. Of websites fitting into a specific category, academic websites had the highest average grade reading level (12.0), while nonprofit websites had the lowest average grade reading level (10.4). Nearly half (19/41) of all websites in our study had diagrams to aid in patient comprehension, while few websites (2/41; 4.8%) displayed videos in addition to written content. The website with the lowest average grade reading level was WebMD, which had an average reading level of 8.5. No individual website in our study met American Medical Association recommended parameters of a sixth-grade reading level CONCLUSION: Readability of currently available OPEM on breast density may be written at a level too difficult for the general public to comprehend, which may represent a barrier to educational goals of newly passed federal breast density legislation.

Breast Density Awareness, Knowledge, and Attitudes Among US Women: National Survey Results Across 5 Years.

To assess changes in breast density (BD) awareness, knowledge, and attitudes among US women over a period of 5 years. Using a probability-based web panel representative of the US population, we administered an identical BD survey in 2012 and 2017 to women aged 40 to 74 years. In 2017, 65.8% had heard of BD (versus 57.5% in 2012; P= .0002). BD awareness in both 2012 and 2017 was significantly associated with race, income, and education. Among women aware of BD in 2017, 76.5% had knowledge of BD's relationship to masking (versus 71.5% in 2012; P= .04); 65.5% had knowledge of BD's relationship to cancer risk (versus 58.5%; P= .009); and 47.3% had discussed BD with a provider (versus 43.1% in 2012; P= .13). After multivariable adjustment, residence in a state with BD legislation was associated in 2017 with knowledge of BD's relationship to risk but not to masking. Most women wanted to know their BD (62.5% in 2017 versus 59.8% in 2012; P= .46); this information was anticipated to cause anxiety in 44.8% (versus 44.9% in 2012; P= .96); confusion in 35.9% (versus 43.0%; P= .002); and feeling informed in 89.7% (versus 90.4%; P= .64). Over three-quarters supported federal BD legislation in both surveys. Response rate to the 2017 survey was 55% (1,502 of 2,730) versus 65% (1,506 of 2,311) in2012. Although BD awareness has increased, important disparities persist. Knowledge of BD's impact on risk has increased; knowledge about masking and BD discussions with providers have not. Most women want to know their BD, would not feel anxious or confused as a result of knowing, and would feel empowered to make decisions. The federal BD notification legislation presents an opportunity to improve awareness and knowledge and encourage BD conversations with providers.

Supplemental Breast Imaging Utilization After Breast Density Legislation in North Carolina

PurposeBreast density notification laws are increasingly common but little is known of how they affect supplemental screening use. The aim of this study was to investigate supplemental screening before and after density notification in North Carolina, where notification has been required since 2014. MethodsBreast screening data from Carolina Mammography Registry participants aged 40 to 79 years with no personal histories of breast cancer or breast implants were evaluated. Supplemental screening was defined as a nondiagnostic digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), whole-breast ultrasound, or breast MRI performed within 3 months of negative or benign results on screening mammography (2-D or DBT). Supplemental screening before (2012-2013) and after (2014-2016) the notification law was compared using logistic regression. ResultsDuring the study period, 78,967 women underwent 145,279 index screening mammographic examinations. Supplemental screening use was similar before and after the notification law, regardless of breast density (dense breasts: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58-1.75; nondense breasts: aOR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.38-1.04). Although there was no change in supplemental screening, new use of any screening DBT from 2014 to 2016 was greater for women with dense breasts (versus nondense breasts; aOR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.08-1.23). ConclusionsData suggest that supplemental screening use in North Carolina did not change after enactment of a breast density notification law, though the increase in new use of any screening DBT was greater for women with dense breasts. The short-term lack of change in supplemental screening should be considered as additional notification laws are developed.

Breast MRI ordering practices in a large health care network.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate providers' ordering practices and perceptions of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in an academic network in order to better understand and educate a referral base. An online survey was distributed to primary care providers (PCPs) and specialists in our hospital and community practices. Questions included provider demographics, current ordering practices, challenges to ordering, and perceptions about breast MRI. Of 525 ordering providers, 134 responded (26% response rate). Of 134 providers, 57 (42%) order breast MRI in practice. Of those who do not, the most consistent reason was a lack of familiarity with the use of breast MRI (32/77 [42%] of cases). Of 57 cases, 45 (79%) order less than 10 exams annually. The most frequent indication is for high-risk screening (40/47 [84%]). PCPs order fewer breast MRI compared with specialists (P=0.01). Both PCPs and specialists have mixed perceptions of the clinical utility of breast MRI. However, 30% of all providers are ordering more breast MRI since the enactment of breast density legislation in Massachusetts. Furthermore, 29% report they would order breast MRI more often to screen women with dense breasts if there was a low cost option. Referring provider surveys are useful tools for assessing a radiology practice. Our study suggests a growing clinical interest in breast MRI for screening; however, there is a need for provider education on the clinical utility of breast MRI. Increasing the radiologist's role in targeted educational interventions may help improve awareness and lead to more appropriate utilization of resources.

Patient-Reported Breast Density Awareness and Knowledge after Breast Density Legislation Passage

To determine awareness and knowledge of breast density and breast density legislation among women receiving routine mammography following passage of Massachusetts breast density legislation. A survey assessing breast density awareness and knowledge was administered to all women receiving screening mammography over two separate 1-week periods at an academic medical center following implementation of mandatory breast density notification. Survey questions queried sociodemographic factors, breast density knowledge, legislation awareness, and medical decision-making intent. Of 1000 survey recipients, 338 (33.8%) returned their survey. Most women were surprised (207/338; 61.2%) to receive their breast density notification letter and unaware (302/338; 89.9%) of newly implemented breast density legislation. The majority (185/338; 54.7%) of survey respondents self-reported having dense breasts. Only 61.1% (113/185) of women with dense breasts reported that their personal breast density increased breast cancer risk, while only 60.0% (78/130) of women with non dense breasts reported that their personal breast density did not increase breast cancer risk. Significant differences between women with dense and nondense breasts were observed related to intention to follow-up with a health practitioner (118/185; 63.8% vs. 66/130; 50.8%, p = 0.03) and views on necessity of supplemental screening based on personal breast density (83/185; 45.1% vs. 20/130; 15.4%, p < 0.01). Despite implementation of state breast density laws since 2009, confusion and misinformation about breast density persists among women receiving mammography screening. Innovative tools that more effectively inform patients, may be required to improve communication and patient understanding about breast density and subsequent breast care management.

Response to Comment on Thigpen D. et al. The Role of Ultrasound in Screening Dense Breasts-A Review of the Literature and Practical Solutions for Implementation. Diagnostics 2018, 8, 20.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments regarding breast density legislation[...].

Primary Care Provider Experience with Breast Density Legislation in Massachusetts.

Dense breasts on mammography independently increases breast cancer risk and decreases mammography sensitivity. Thirty-two states have adopted notification laws to raise awareness among women with dense breasts about supplemental screening. Little is known about these policies' impact on clinical practice among primary care providers (PCPs). This study explores PCP attitudes, knowledge, and the impact of the Massachusetts dense breast notification legislation on clinical practice after its enactment in 2015. An anonymous, online survey at two urban safety-net hospitals was administered in 2015-2016. Practicing MDs and nurse practitioners in primary care were invited to participate. All 145 PCPs in general internal medicine at the two sites were e-mailed a survey link and 80 (55%) were completed. While 64 of 80 PCPs surveyed (80%) had some familiarity with the legislation, none identified the 8 required components of notifications contained in the Massachusetts legislation. Forty-nine percent (39/80) did not feel prepared to respond to patient questions about dense breasts. Forty-one percent (33/80) correctly identified that no current guidelines recommend the use of supplemental screening tests solely based on breast density and 85% (68/80) indicated interest in further training. Female and less experienced providers were more likely to be in favor of the legislation (49% vs. 11% by gender; 76% <5 years vs. 9%> 20 years). Women practitioners (55%) who were more likely than men (17%, p = 0.01) to agree with the policy changed their discussions of mammography results with patients. PCPs feel underprepared to counsel women about breast density identified on mammography and its implications.

The effect of volumetric breast density on the risk of screen-detected and interval breast cancers: a cohort study

BackgroundIn the light of the breast density legislation in the USA, it is important to know a woman’s breast cancer risk, but particularly her risk of a tumor that is not detected through mammographic screening (interval cancer). Therefore, we examined the associations of automatically measured volumetric breast density with screen-detected and interval cancer risk, separately.MethodsVolumetric breast measures were assessed automatically using Volpara version 1.5.0 (Matakina, New Zealand) for the first available digital mammography (DM) examination of 52,814 women (age 50 − 75 years) participating in the Dutch biennial breast cancer screening program between 2003 and 2011. Breast cancer information was obtained from the screening registration system and through linkage with the Netherlands Cancer Registry. We excluded all screen-detected breast cancers diagnosed as a result of the first digital screening examination. During a median follow-up period of 4.2 (IQR 2.0–6.2) years, 523 women were diagnosed with breast cancer of which 299 were screen-detected and 224 were interval breast cancers. The associations between volumetric breast measures and breast cancer risk were determined using Cox proportional hazards analyses.ResultsPercentage dense volume was found to be positively associated with both interval and screen-detected breast cancers (hazard ratio (HR) 8.37 (95% CI 4.34–16.17) and HR 1.39 (95% CI 0.82–2.36), respectively, for Volpara density grade category (VDG) 4 compared to VDG1 (p for heterogeneity < 0.001)). Dense volume (DV) was also found to be positively associated with both interval and screen-detected breast cancers (HR 4.92 (95% CI 2.98–8.12) and HR 2.30 (95% CI 1.39–3.80), respectively, for VDG-like category (C)4 compared to C1 (p for heterogeneity = 0.041)). The association between percentage dense volume categories and interval breast cancer risk (HR 8.37) was not significantly stronger than the association between absolute dense volume categories and interval breast cancer risk (HR 4.92).ConclusionsOur results suggest that both absolute dense volume and percentage dense volume are strong markers of breast cancer risk, but that they are even stronger markers for predicting the occurrence of tumors that are not detected during mammography breast cancer screening.

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

This study aimed to assess radiologists' knowledge about breast density legislation as well as perceived practice changes resulting from the enactment of breast density legislation. This is an institutional review board-exempt anonymous email survey of 523 members of the New England Roentgen Ray Society. In addition to radiologist demographics, survey questions addressed radiologist knowledge of breast density legislation, knowledge of breast density as a risk factor for breast cancer, recommendations for supplemental screening, and perceived practice changes resulting from density notification legislation. Of the 523 members, 96 responded, yielding an 18% response rate. Seventy-three percent of respondents practiced in a state with breast density legislation. Sixty-nine percent felt that breast density notification increased patient anxiety about breast cancer, but also increased patient (74%) and provider (66%) understanding of the effect of breast density on mammographic sensitivity. Radiologist knowledge of the relative risk of breast cancer when comparing breasts of different density was variable. Considerable confusion and controversy regarding breast density persists, even among practicing radiologists.

Impact of Breast Density Legislation on Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Supplemental Screening: A Survey of 110 Radiology Facilities.

Breast density notification laws, passed in 19 states as of October 2014, mandate that patients be informed of their breast density. The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of this legislation on radiology practices, including performance of breast cancer risk assessment and supplemental screening studies. A 20-question anonymous web-based survey was emailed to radiologists in the Society of Breast Imaging between August 2013 and March 2014. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact test. Around 121 radiologists from 110 facilities in 34 USA states and 1 Canadian site responded. About 50% (55/110) of facilities had breast density legislation, 36% of facilities (39/109) performed breast cancer risk assessment (one facility did not respond). Risk assessment was performed as a new task in response to density legislation in 40% (6/15) of facilities in states with notification laws. However, there was no significant difference in performing risk assessment between facilities in states with a law and those without (p<0.831). In anticipation of breast density legislation, 33% (16/48), 6% (3/48), and 6% (3/48) of facilities in states with laws implemented handheld whole breast ultrasound (WBUS), automated WBUS, and tomosynthesis, respectively. The ratio of facilities offering handheld WBUS was significantly higher in states with a law than in states without (p<0.001). In response to breast density legislation, more than 33% of facilities are offering supplemental screening with WBUS and tomosynthesis, and many are performing formal risk assessment for determining patient management.

Mammographic Breast Density and Breast Cancer Risk: Implications of the Breast Density Legislation for Health Care Practitioners.

Breast density has emerged as a critical phenotypic marker of increased breast cancer risk. The breast density legislation, passed in multiple states, requires patient notification of the implications of the breast density on breast cancer risk and screening. Supplemental screening may be suggested in the state regulation; however, there are limited data to guide conversations with patients. This article will review the current state of supplemental screening in women with dense breasts and discuss theories of the mechanism of action. Guidance is provided to assist in shared decision making and appropriate patient counseling.

Abstract PD4-07: Impact of breast density legislation on Hispanic / Latinas in the Northeast, US

Abstract Objective: Changes in health care delivery and policies resulting from translational research efforts are intended to benefit a broad segment of the affected population. Yet, uptake of new approaches may not occur at the same level and/or pace in all groups, inadvertently increasing disparities in cancer outcomes. Our objective is to explore the impact of recently enacted legislation associated with routine mammography screening on Hispanic /Latino women living in Connecticut. Background: Breast densities are the non-fat (epithelial and stromal) breast tissue observable on screening mammograms. They are associated with a 4 to 6 fold increase in breast cancer risk and complicate the reading of screening mammograms, resulting in lowered sensitivity. Connecticut (CT) and many other states have enacted legislation requiring supplemental testing to be offered to women with dense breasts. Per CT statute, insurance companies must cover the cost of ultrasound screening of an entire breast/breasts for women with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts. Additionally, personal information on breast density must be included in the mailed result following a screening mammogram. The intent is to improve early detection in women with dense breasts and to increase awareness of the greater risk of associated with dense breast tissue. Methods: After this law was enacted in 2008, we undertook a large prospective study of mammography screening in community based Hispanic/Latinas. We enrolled women seeking care in primary health care settings in the 4 CT cities with the largest H/L populations. Eligible women were ages 40-75, self-identified as H/L, and had negative history for breast cancer or breast biopsy. With 75% participation for baseline interview and 98% consent for medical record review, we report baseline interview data and mammography results (medical records) over a 2.5 - 4 year follow-up on 668 H/L women, ages 40-79, living in CT at the time of enrollment (2009-2011). Results: The women in this study were mostly foreign or Puerto Rican born (84%), lower socioeconomic status (51% with household incomes less than $10,000 per year; 54% less had than a high school education) than the general population; median age was 51. Nearly half (46.0%) reported no usual care provider. Only 14% reported speaking English "very well". Most women reported that they received a mammogram in the previous year (65.0%). 21.4% of women met the criteria for receiving additional bilateral ultrasound testing due to heterogeneously dense (19.2%) or extremely dense (2.3%) breast tissue on screening mammograms occurring during follow up. Of the 128 women eligible for follow-up ultrasound, 18 (14%) received this exam. Conclusion: Although state law requires patient notification of breast density and insurance coverage for supplementary bilateral ultrasound tests in women with moderate to extremely dense breasts, our results show low uptake in Hispanic/Latino women in CT. In this largely foreign born, English second language population, effective communication regarding breast cancer risk, breast density, and the availability of follow-up ultrasound or other testing may represent a significant cancer care challenge. Citation Format: Jones BA, Philpotts L, Cooley R, Silber A, Epstein L, Claye E. Impact of breast density legislation on Hispanic / Latinas in the Northeast, US. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2015 Dec 8-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD4-07.

Breast Density Legislation: Discussion of Patient Utilization and Subsequent Direct Financial Ramifications for Insurance Providers

Now that New Jersey has become the 14th state in the United States to enact legislation regarding dense breast screening, its patients are eligible to receive screening breast sonography coverage from their insurance carriers. This law is intended to improve breast cancer detection in patients with dense breasts and create awareness of unique issues that come with dense breast tissue, while reinforcing already present efforts to reduce the incidence of and morbidity related to the diagnosis of breast cancer. The aim of this study was to examine data from months preceding the effective date of this legislation in a community hospital setting and compare these data with data from months immediately after, and 6 months after, its enactment to present patient participation data and estimate the legislation’s direct financial ramifications. Detractors of this type of legislation worry about overburdening the health care system with an influx of patients. Although there is a lack of present studies confirming this suspicion in other states with dense breast legislation, this study confirms a large increase in patient utilization after enactment, showing a minimum relative increase of 176.90% and a maximum relative increase of 335.56% in patient utilization of screening breast sonography. The investigators further include an estimation of an increased direct cost for insurers of $4,910,899.18 to $9,848,897.96 for a given month.

The early effect of breast density legislation on mammogram reporting.

1052 Background: Federal legislation mandating mammographic breast density reporting to patients has been introduced to Congress. California enacted breast density notification legislation (SB1538)...

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

Legislation mandating disclosure of breast density (BD) information has passed in 21 states; however, actual awareness of BD and knowledge of its impact on breast cancer detection and risk are unknown. We conducted a national cross-sectional survey administered in English and Spanish using a probability-based sample of screening-age women, with oversampling of Connecticut, the only state with BD legislation in effect for > 1 year before the survey. Of 2,311 women surveyed, 65% responded. Overall, 58% of women had heard of BD, 49% knew that BD affects breast cancer detection, and 53% knew that BD affects cancer risk. After multivariable adjustment, increased BD awareness was associated with white non-Hispanic race/ethnicity (Hispanic v white non-Hispanic: odds ratio [OR], 0.23; P < .001), household income (OR, 1.07 per category increase; P < .001), education (OR, 1.19 per category increase; P < .001), diagnostic evaluation after a mammogram (OR, 2.64; P < .001), and postmenopausal hormone therapy (OR, 1.69; P = .002). Knowledge of the masking effect of BD was associated with higher household income (OR, 1.10; P < .001), education (OR, 1.22; P = .01), prior breast biopsy (OR, 2.16; P < .001), and residing in Connecticut (Connecticut v other states: OR, 3.82; P = .003). Connecticut residents were also more likely to have discussed their BD with a health care provider (67% v 43% for residents of other US states; P = .001). Disparities in BD awareness and knowledge exist by race/ethnicity, education, and income. BD legislation seems to be effective in increasing knowledge of BD impact on breast cancer detection. These findings support continued and targeted efforts to improve BD awareness and knowledge among women eligible for screening mammography.