Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Breast Density Legislation Impact on Breast Cancer Screening and Risk Assessment.
Kothari, Pranay; Tseng, Joseph J; Chalfant, James S; Pittman, Sarah M; Hoyt, Anne C; Larsen, Linda; Sheth, Pulin; Yamashita, Mary; Downey, John; Ikeda, Debra M.
Afiliação
  • Kothari P; Scripps Health, Department of Radiology, San Diego, CA, USA.
  • Tseng JJ; Stanford University School of Medicine, Department of Radiology, Stanford, CA, USA.
  • Chalfant JS; David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California Los Angeles, Department of Radiological Sciences, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
  • Pittman SM; Stanford University School of Medicine, Department of Radiology, Stanford, CA, USA.
  • Hoyt AC; David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California Los Angeles, Department of Radiological Sciences, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
  • Larsen L; University of Southern California, Department of Radiology, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
  • Sheth P; University of Southern California, Department of Radiology, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
  • Yamashita M; University of Southern California, Department of Radiology, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
  • Downey J; Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Walnut Creek, CA, USA.
  • Ikeda DM; Stanford University School of Medicine, Department of Radiology, Stanford, CA, USA.
J Breast Imaging ; 4(4): 371-377, 2022 Jul 29.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38416983
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

To evaluate breast density notification legislation (BDNL) on breast imaging practice patterns, risk assessment, and supplemental screening.

METHODS:

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.

RESULTS:

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).

CONCLUSION:

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.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article