The Impact of Breast Density Notification Laws on Supplemental Breast Imaging and Breast Biopsy
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.
Examine the effects of state breast density notification laws on use of supplemental breast imaging and breast biopsies.
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.
Women ages 40–64 years receiving an initial mammogram in a state that passed a breast density notification law or a control state.
Mandatory breast density notification following an index mammogram.
Use of breast biopsies and supplemental breast imaging (breast ultrasound, tomosynthesis, magnetic resonance imaging, scintimammography, and thermography), overall and by specific test.
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 6–12 months 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.
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.
KEY WORDSbreast cancer cancer screening health communication health policy health services research
We acknowledge and sincerely thank Dr. Kenneth L. Kehl for his guidance and consultation on methodology for determining an incidence cohort for breast cancer from the Truven Marketscan claims databases.
Dr. Saulsberry’s effort was supported by R25 CA92203 from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Pace’s effort was supported by an American Cancer Society Cancer Control Career Development Award for Primary Care Physicians and 1K07CA215819-01A1 from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Keating’s effort was supported by K24CA181510 from the National Cancer Institute.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
- 7.Connecticut Bill 458, Public Act No. 9—41. An act requiring communication of mammographic breast density information to patients, 2009. https://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/ACT/PA/2009PA-00041-R00SB-00458-PA.htm. Accessed January 23, 2018.
- 8.Legislation and regulation-notification requred by state. 2019. Accessed at https://densebreastinfo.org/legislation.aspx Accessed January 23, 2018.
- 13.USPSTF. Summary on breast cancer screening guidelines. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/UpdateSummaryFinal/breast-cancer-screening1. Accessed January 23, 2018.
- 19.Horny M, Cohen AB, Duszak R Jr, Christiansen CL, Shwartz M, Burgess JF Jr. Dense breast notification laws: impact on downstream imaging after screening mammography. Med Care Res Rev. 2018; 00(0): 1–19.Google Scholar
- 20.Truven Health Analytics. IBM Watson Health. MarketScan Databases. http://truvenhealth.com/markets/life-sciences/products/data-tools/marketscan-databases. Accessed January 23, 2018.
- 21.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Behavioral risk factor surveillance system. 2014 survey data and documentation. https://www.cdc.gov/brfss/annual_data/annual_2014.html. Accessed January 23, 2018.
- 22.National Committee for Quality Assurance: HEDIS® 2014: Healthcare effectiveness data and information set. http://www.ncqa.org/Portals/0/HEDISQM/ HEDIS2014/List_of_HEDIS_2014_Measures.pdf. Accessed January 23, 2018.
- 37.Agresti A. Categorical Data Analysis. 3rd edition. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons; 2013.Google Scholar
- 40.U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Mammography Quality Standards Act and Program (MQSA) National Statistics. https://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/MammographyQualityStandardsActandProgram/FacilityScorecard/ucm113858.htm. Accessed January 23, 2018.
- 43.Food and Drug Administration. 21 CFR Part 900 Mammography Quality Standards Act; Federal Register. March 28, 2019; Volume 84 (60): 11669-11686. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/EconomicAnalyses/UCM634476.pdf. Accessed April 29, 2019
- 44.Senate Report 115-259. Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2019. https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/115th-congress/senate-report/259/1?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22farm%22%5D%7D. Accessed April 29, 2019.