Content, Readability, and Understandability of Dense Breast Notifications by State

The impact of breast density notification on psychosocial outcomes in racial and ethnic minorities: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

High breast density is an independent risk factor for breast cancer and decreases the sensitivity of mammography. This systematic review synthesizes the evidence on the impact of breast density (BD) information and/or notification on women's psychosocial outcomes among women from racial and ethnic minority groups.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in March 2023, and the articles were identified using CINHAL, Embase, Medline, and PsychInfo databases. The search strategy combined the terms "breast", "density", "notification" and synonyms. The authors specifically kept the search terms broad and did not include terms related to race and ethnicity. Full-text articles were reviewed for analysis by race, ethnicity and primary language of participants. Two authors evaluated the eligibility of studies with verification from the study team, extracted and crosschecked data, and assessed the risk of bias.

RESULTS

Of 1784 articles, 32 articles published from 2003 to 2023 were included. Thirty-one studies were conducted in the United States and one in Australia, with 28 quantitative and four qualitative methodologies. The overall results in terms of breast density awareness, knowledge, communication with healthcare professionals, screening intentions and supplemental screening practice were heterogenous across studies. Barriers to understanding BD notifications and intentions/access to supplemental screening among racial and ethnic minorities included socioeconomic factors, language, health literacy and medical mistrust.

CONCLUSIONS

A one-size approach to inform women about their BD may further disadvantage racial and ethnic minority women. BD notification and accompanying information should be tailored and translated to ensure readability and understandability by all women.

Evaluating the Use of ChatGPT to Accurately Simplify Patient-centered Information about Breast Cancer Prevention and Screening

Purpose To evaluate the use of ChatGPT as a tool to simplify answers to common questions about breast cancer prevention and screening. Materials and Methods In this retrospective, exploratory study, ChatGPT was requested to simplify responses to 25 questions about breast cancer to a sixth-grade reading level in March and August 2023. Simplified responses were evaluated for clinical appropriateness. All original and simplified responses were assessed for reading ease on the Flesch Reading Ease Index and for readability on five scales: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning Fog Index, Coleman-Liau Index, Automated Readability Index, and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (ie, SMOG) Index. Mean reading ease, readability, and word count were compared between original and simplified responses using paired t tests. McNemar test was used to compare the proportion of responses with adequate reading ease (score of 60 or greater) and readability (sixth-grade level). Results ChatGPT improved mean reading ease (original responses, 46 vs simplified responses, 70; P < .001) and readability (original, grade 13 vs simplified, grade 8.9; P < .001) and decreased word count (original, 193 vs simplified, 173; P < .001). Ninety-two percent (23 of 25) of simplified responses were considered clinically appropriate. All 25 (100%) simplified responses met criteria for adequate reading ease, compared with only two of 25 original responses (P < .001). Two of the 25 simplified responses (8%) met criteria for adequate readability. Conclusion ChatGPT simplified answers to common breast cancer screening and prevention questions by improving the readability by four grade levels, though the potential to produce incorrect information necessitates physician oversight when using this tool. Keywords: Mammography, Screening, Informatics, Breast, Education, Health Policy and Practice, Oncology, Technology Assessment Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2023.

Protocol for a pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomized clinical trial testing behavioral economic implementation strategies to increase supplemental breast MRI screening among patients with extremely dense breasts

BACKGROUND

Increased breast density augments breast cancer risk and reduces mammography sensitivity. Supplemental breast MRI screening can significantly increase cancer detection among women with dense breasts. However, few women undergo this exam, and screening is consistently lower among racially minoritized populations. Implementation strategies informed by behavioral economics ("nudges") can promote evidence-based practices by improving clinician decision-making under conditions of uncertainty. Nudges directed toward clinicians and patients may facilitate the implementation of supplemental breast MRI.

METHODS

Approximately 1600 patients identified as having extremely dense breasts after non-actionable mammograms, along with about 1100 clinicians involved with their care at 32 primary care or OB/GYN clinics across a racially diverse academically based health system, will be enrolled. A 2 × 2 randomized pragmatic trial will test nudges to patients, clinicians, both, or neither to promote supplemental breast MRI screening. Before implementation, rapid cycle approaches informed by clinician and patient experiences and behavioral economics and health equity frameworks guided nudge design. Clinicians will be clustered into clinic groups based on existing administrative departments and care patterns, and these clinic groups will be randomized to have the nudge activated at different times per a stepped wedge design. Clinicians will receive nudges integrated into the routine mammographic report or sent through electronic health record (EHR) in-basket messaging once their clinic group (i.e., wedge) is randomized to receive the intervention. Independently, patients will be randomized to receive text message nudges or not. The primary outcome will be defined as ordering or scheduling supplemental breast MRI. Secondary outcomes include MRI completion, cancer detection rates, and false-positive rates. Patient sociodemographic information and clinic-level variables will be examined as moderators of nudge effectiveness. Qualitative interviews conducted at the trial's conclusion will examine barriers and facilitators to implementation.

DISCUSSION

This study will add to the growing literature on the effectiveness of behavioral economics-informed implementation strategies to promote evidence-based interventions. The design will facilitate testing the relative effects of nudges to patients and clinicians and the effects of moderators of nudge effectiveness, including key indicators of health disparities. The results may inform the introduction of low-cost, scalable implementation strategies to promote early breast cancer detection.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05787249. Registered on March 28, 2023.

Psychosocial outcomes and health service use after notifying women participating in population breast screening when they have dense breasts: a BreastScreen Queensland randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Robust evidence regarding the benefits and harms of notifying Australian women when routine breast screening identifies that they have dense breasts is needed for informing future mammography population screening practice and policy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the psychosocial and health services use effects of notifying women participating in population-based breast cancer screening that they have dense breasts; to examine whether the mode of communicating this information about its implications (print, online formats) influences these effects.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The study population comprises women aged 40 years or older who attend BreastScreen Queensland Sunshine Coast services for mammographic screening and are found to have dense breasts (BI-RADS density C or D). The randomised controlled trial includes three arms (952 women each): standard BreastScreen care (no notification of breast density; control arm); notification of dense breasts in screening results letter and print health literacy-sensitive information (intervention arm 1) or a link or QR code to online video-based health literacy-sensitive information (intervention arm 2). Baseline demographic data will be obtained from BreastScreen Queensland. Outcomes data will be collected in questionnaires at baseline and eight weeks, twelve months, and 27 months after breast screening. Primary outcomes will be psychological outcomes and health service use; secondary outcomes will be supplemental screening outcomes, cancer worry, perceived breast cancer risk, knowledge about breast density, future mammographic screening intentions, and acceptability of notification about dense breasts.

ETHICS APPROVAL

Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service Ethics Committee (HREC/2023/QGC/89770); Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service Research Governance and Development (SSA/2023/QSC/89770).

DISSEMINATION OF FINDINGS

Findings will be reported in peer-reviewed journals and at national and international conferences. They will also be reported to BreastScreen Queensland, BreastScreen Australia, Cancer Australia, and other bodies involved in cancer care and screening, including patient and support organisations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12623000001695p (prospective: 9 January 2023).

Breast Cancer in Dense Breasts: Detection Challenges and Supplemental Screening Opportunities

Dense breast tissue at mammography is associated with higher breast cancer incidence and mortality rates, which have prompted new considerations for breast cancer screening in women with dense breasts. The authors review the definition and classification of breast density, density assessment methods, breast cancer risk, current legislation, and future efforts and summarize trials and key studies that have affected the existing guidelines for supplemental screening. Cases of breast cancer in dense breasts are presented, highlighting a variety of modalities and specific imaging findings that can aid in cancer detection and staging. Understanding the current state of breast cancer screening in patients with dense breasts and its challenges is important to shape future considerations for care. Shifting the paradigm of breast cancer detection toward early diagnosis for women with dense breasts may be the answer to reducing the number of deaths from this common disease. ©RSNA, 2023 Online supplemental material is available for this article. Quiz questions for this article are available through the Online Learning Center. See the invited commentary by Yeh in this issue.

Breast cancer risk characteristics of women undergoing whole-breast ultrasound screening versus mammography alone

BACKGROUND

There are no consensus guidelines for supplemental breast cancer screening with whole-breast ultrasound. However, criteria for women at high risk of mammography screening failures (interval invasive cancer or advanced cancer) have been identified. Mammography screening failure risk was evaluated among women undergoing supplemental ultrasound screening in clinical practice compared with women undergoing mammography alone.

METHODS

A total of 38,166 screening ultrasounds and 825,360 screening mammograms without supplemental screening were identified during 2014-2020 within three Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) registries. Risk of interval invasive cancer and advanced cancer were determined using BCSC prediction models. High interval invasive breast cancer risk was defined as heterogeneously dense breasts and BCSC 5-year breast cancer risk ≥2.5% or extremely dense breasts and BCSC 5-year breast cancer risk ≥1.67%. Intermediate/high advanced cancer risk was defined as BCSC 6-year advanced breast cancer risk ≥0.38%.

RESULTS

A total of 95.3% of 38,166 ultrasounds were among women with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts, compared with 41.8% of 825,360 screening mammograms without supplemental screening (p < .0001). Among women with dense breasts, high interval invasive breast cancer risk was prevalent in 23.7% of screening ultrasounds compared with 18.5% of screening mammograms without supplemental imaging (adjusted odds ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.30-1.39); intermediate/high advanced cancer risk was prevalent in 32.0% of screening ultrasounds versus 30.5% of screening mammograms without supplemental screening (adjusted odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.89-0.94).

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrasound screening was highly targeted to women with dense breasts, but only a modest proportion were at high mammography screening failure risk. A clinically significant proportion of women undergoing mammography screening alone were at high mammography screening failure risk.

Women's Reactions to Breast Density Information Vary by Sociodemographic Characteristics

BACKGROUND

Breast density information aims to increase awareness of breast density and its risks and to foster more informed future breast screening decisions among women with dense breasts. We explored associations between such information and outcomes including anxiety, confusion, or feeling informed, and whether they varied by race/ethnicity or literacy, or differentially affected future mammography plans.

METHODS

A national telephone survey of a diverse sample of women previously informed of personal breast density (N = 1,322) assessed reactions to receipt of breast density information and future mammography plans.

RESULTS

Most women (86%) felt informed after receiving personal breast density information; however, some felt anxious (15%) or confused (11%). Reactions varied significantly by sociodemographics; non-Hispanic Black, Asian, and Hispanic women and women with low literacy were nearly two to three times more likely to report anxiety than non-Hispanic White women (all ps < .05). Asian women and those with low literacy less often felt informed and more often felt confused. Non-Hispanic Black and Asian women were nearly twice as likely to report that knowing their breast density made them more likely to have future mammograms. Women with low literacy were more likely to change mammography plans, with some being more likely and others less likely to plan to have future mammograms. Greater anxiety and confusion were associated with higher likelihood of planning future mammograms; those feeling informed were less likely to plan future mammography.

CONCLUSIONS

Differential reactions to breast density information are concerning if associated with disparate future screening plans. Future breast density education efforts should ensure that such information is readily accessible and understandable to all women in order to lead to desired effects.

Ensuring Clarity and Understandability of the FDA's Breast Density Notifications

This Viewpoint discusses the use of breast density notifications to inform women with dense breast tissue of the potential need for supplemental cancer screening, as well as the need to ensure that such notifications are clear and understandable to women of all language backgrounds, literacy levels, educational levels, and socioeconomic backgrounds.

Women's Breast Cancer Screening Confidence by Screening Modality and Breast Density: A Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Survey Study

Objective: Little is known about women's confidence in their breast cancer screening. We sought to characterize breast cancer screening confidence by imaging modality and clinically assessed breast density. Materials and Methods: We undertook a cross-sectional survey of women ages 40-74 years who received digital mammography (DM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and/or breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with a normal screening exam in the prior year. The main outcome was women's confidence (Very, Somewhat, A little, Not at all) in their breast cancer screening detecting any cancer. Multivariable logistic regression identified correlates of being very confident in breast cancer screening by screening modality group: Group 1) DM vs. DBT and Group 2) DM or DBT alone vs. with supplemental MRI. Results: Overall, 2329 of 7439 (31.3%) invitees participated, with 30%-61% being very confident in their screening across modality and density subgroups. Having dense versus nondense breasts was associated with lower odds of being very confident (Group 1: odds ratio [OR]: 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.46-0.79; Group 2: OR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.40-0.79). There were no differences by modality within Group 1, but for Group 2, women undergoing MRI had higher odds of being very confident (OR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.21-2.37). Other correlates of greater screening confidence were as follows: Group 1-being offered a screening test choice and cost not influencing modality received, and Group 2-decision satisfaction and worry. Conclusions: Women with dense breasts had lower screening confidence regardless of screening modality and those undergoing MRI had higher confidence regardless of density. The importance of informing women about screening options is underscored by observed associations between screening choice, decision satisfaction, and screening confidence. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02980848.

What's in Between the Lines: Assessing the Readability, Understandability, and Actionability in Breast Cancer Survivorship Print Materials

Educational print materials for young women breast cancer survivors (YBCS) are supplemental tools used in patient teaching. However, the readability of the text coupled with how well YBCS understand or act upon the material are rarely explored. The purpose of this study was to assess the readability, understandability, and actionability of commonly distributed breast cancer survivorship print materials. We used an environmental scan approach to obtain a sample of breast cancer survivorship print materials available in outpatient oncology clinics in the central region of a largely rural Southern state. The readability analyses were completed using the Flesch-Kincaid (F-K), Fry Graph Readability Formula (Fry), and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG). Understandability and actionability were analyzed using Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printable Materials (PEMAT-P). The environmental scan resulted in a final sample of 14 materials. The mean readability of the majority of survivorship materials was "difficult," but the majority scored above the recommended 70% in both understandability and actionability. The importance of understandability and actionability may outweigh readability results in cancer education survivorship material. While reading grade level cannot be dismissed all together, we surmise that patient behavior may hinge more on other factors such as understandability and actionability. Personalized teaching accompanying print material may help YBCS comprehend key messages and promote acting upon specific tasks.

A systematic assessment of online international breast density information

Background

Breast density has become a topic of international discussion due to its associated risk of breast cancer. As online is often a primary source of women's health information it is therefore essential that breast density information it is understandable, accurate and reflects the best available evidence. This study aimed to systematically assess online international breast density information including recommendations to women.

Methods

Searches were conducted from five different English-speaking country-specific Google locations. Relevant breast density information was extracted from the identified websites. Readability was assessed using the SHeLL Editor, and understandability and actionability using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT). A content analysis of specific recommendations to women was also conducted.

Results

Forty-two eligible websites were identified and systematically assessed. The included informational content varied across websites. The average grade reading level across all websites was 12.4 (range 8.9–15.4). The mean understandability was 69.9% and the mean actionability was 40.1%, with 18/42 and 39/42 websites respectively scoring lower than adequate (70%). Thirty-six (85.7%) of the websites had breast density-related recommendation to women, with ‘talk to your doctor’ (n = 33, 78.6%) the most common.

Conclusions

Online information about breast density varies widely and is not generally presented in a way that women can easily understand and act on, therefore greatly reducing the ability for informed decision-making. International organisations and groups disseminating breast density information need to ensure that women are presented with health literacy-sensitive and balanced information, and be aware of the impact that recommendations may have on practice.

•

First study to systematically assess online international breast density information.

•

Information across the websites varies widely.

•

Readability, understandability and actionability are low and poor.

•

The most common recommendation to women is to ‘talk to your doctor’.

•

More health literacy-sensitive online information about breast density is needed internationally.

A letter is not enough: Women's preferences for and experiences of receiving breast density information

OBJECTIVE

Despite evidence of disparate uptake of breast density (BD) information, little is known about diverse women's preferences for and experiences learning about BD.

METHODS

Telephone survey among 2306 racially/ethnically and literacy diverse women; qualitative interviews with 61 survey respondents. Responses by participant race/ethnicity and literacy were examined using bivariate, then multivariable analyses. Interviews were content-analyzed for themes.

RESULTS

Most women (80%) preferred learning of personal BD from providers, with higher rates among Non-Hispanic Black (85%) than Non-Hispanic White women (80%); and among Non-Hispanic White than Asian women (72%, all ps<0.05). Women with low literacy less often preferred receiving BD information from providers (76% v. 81%), more often preferring written notification (21% vs. 10%); women with high literacy more often preferred learning through an online portal (9% vs 3%). Most women (93%) received BD information from providers (no between group differences). Qualitative findings detailed women's desires for obtaining BD information from providers, written information, and visual depictions of BD.

CONCLUSIONS

When educating women about BD, one size does not fit all.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Additional educational methods are needed beyond written BD notifications to sufficiently address the varying informational needs and preferences of all USA women.

Australian Women's Intentions and Psychological Outcomes Related to Breast Density Notification and Information: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Whether the benefits of notifying women about breast density outweigh the potential harms to inform current and future mammogram screening practice remains unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of mammographic breast density notification and information provision on women's intention to seek supplemental screening and psychological outcomes.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A 3-arm online randomized clinical trial was conducted from August 10 to 31, 2021. Data analysis was conducted from September 1 to October 20, 2021. Participants included Australian residents identifying as female, aged between 40 and 74 years, with no history of breast cancer who were residing in jurisdictions without existing breast density notification with screening mammograms.

INTERVENTIONS

Women were randomized to receive 1 of the following hypothetical breast screening test result letters: screening mammogram result letter without breast density messaging (control), screening mammogram result letter with breast density messaging and an existing density information letter taken from a screening service in Australia (intervention 1), and screening mammogram result letter with breast density messaging and a health literacy-sensitive version of the letter adapted for people with lower health literacy (intervention 2).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcomes were intention to seek supplemental screening; feeling anxious (uneasy, worried, or nervous), informed, or confused; and having breast cancer worry.

RESULTS

A total of 1420 Australian women were randomized and included in the final analysis. The largest group consisted of 603 women aged 60 to 74 years (42.5%). Compared with the control cohort (n = 480), women who received density notification via intervention 1 (n = 470) and intervention 2 (n = 470) reported a significantly higher intention to seek supplemental screening (0.8% vs 15.6% and 14.2%; P < .001) and feeling anxious (14.2% vs 49.4% and 48.5%; P < .001), confusion (7.8% vs 24.0% and 23.6%; P < .001), and worry about breast cancer (quite/very worried: 6.9% vs 17.2% and 15.5%; P < .001). There were no statistically significant differences in these outcomes between the 2 intervention groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this randomized clinical trial, breast density notification and information integrated with screening mammogram results increased women's intention to seek supplemental screening and made women feel anxious, confused, or worried about breast cancer. These findings have relevance and implications for mammogram screening services and policy makers considering whether and, if so, how best to implement widespread notification of breast density as part of mammography screening.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ACTRN12621000253808.

Breast Density Knowledge in a Screening Mammography Population Exposed to Density Notification

OBJECTIVE

Women are increasingly informed about their breast density due to state density reporting laws. However, accuracy of personal breast density knowledge remains unclear. We compared self-reported with clinically assessed breast density and assessed knowledge of density implications and feelings about future screening.

METHODS

From December 2017 to January 2020, we surveyed women aged 40 to 74 years without prior breast cancer, with a normal screening mammogram in the prior year, and ≥1 recorded breast density measures in four Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries with density reporting laws. We measured agreement between self-reported and BI-RADS breast density categorized as "ever-dense" if heterogeneously or extremely dense within the past 5 years or "never-dense" otherwise, knowledge of dense breast implications, and feelings about future screening.

RESULTS

Survey participation was 28% (1,528 of 5,408), and 59% (896 of 1,528) of participants had ever-dense breasts. Concordance between self-report versus clinical density was 76% (677 of 896) among women with ever-dense breasts and 14% (89 of 632) among women with never-dense breasts, and 34% (217 of 632) with never-dense breasts reported being told they had dense breasts. Desire for supplemental screening was more frequent among those who reported having dense breasts 29% (256 of 893) or asked to imagine having dense breasts 30% (152 of 513) versus those reporting nondense breasts 15% (15 of 102) (P = .003, P = .002, respectively). Women with never-dense breasts had 6.3-fold higher odds (95% confidence interval:3.39-11.80) of accurate knowledge in states reporting density to all compared to states reporting only to women with dense breasts.

DISCUSSION

Standardized communications of breast density results to all women may increase density knowledge and are needed to support informed screening decisions.

Trends in Annual Surveillance Mammography Participation Among Breast Cancer Survivors From 2004 to 2016

BACKGROUND

Annual mammography is recommended for breast cancer survivors; however, population-level temporal trends in surveillance mammography participation have not been described. Our objective was to characterize trends in annual surveillance mammography participation among women with a personal history of breast cancer over a 13-year period.

METHODS

We examined annual surveillance mammography participation from 2004 to 2016 in a nationwide sample of commercially insured women with prior breast cancer. Rates were stratified by age group (40-49 vs 50-64 years), visit with a surgical/oncology specialist or primary care provider within the prior year, and sociodemographic characteristics. Joinpoint models were used to estimate annual percentage changes (APCs) in participation during the study period.

RESULTS

Among 141,672 women, mammography rates declined from 74.1% in 2004 to 67.1% in 2016. Rates were stable from 2004 to 2009 (APC, 0.1%; 95% CI, -0.5% to 0.8%) but declined 1.5% annually from 2009 to 2016 (95% CI, -1.9% to -1.1%). For women aged 40 to 49 years, rates declined 2.8% annually (95% CI, -3.4% to -2.1%) after 2009 versus 1.4% annually in women aged 50 to 64 years (95% CI, -1.9% to -1.0%). Similar trends were observed in women who had seen a surgeon/oncologist (APC, -1.7%; 95% CI, -2.1% to -1.4%) or a primary care provider (APC, -1.6%; 95% CI, -2.1% to -1.2%) in the prior year.

CONCLUSIONS

Surveillance mammography participation among breast cancer survivors declined from 2009 to 2016, most notably among women aged 40 to 49 years. These findings highlight a need for focused efforts to improve adherence to surveillance and prevent delays in detection of breast cancer recurrence and second cancers.

Evaluating educational interventions to increase breast density awareness among Latinas: A randomized trial in a Federally Qualified Health Center

BACKGROUND

The objective of this randomized trial was to evaluate the short-term effect of bilingual written and interpersonal education regarding mammographic breast density (MBD).

METHODS

Latinas aged 40 to 74 years who were presenting for screening mammography were recruited and randomized 1:1:1 to receive a letter with their mammogram and MBD results (usual care [UC]), a letter plus a brochure (enhanced care [ENH]), or a letter plus a brochure and telephonic promotora education (interpersonal care [INT]). Surveys were administered at enrollment (T₀ ) and 2 weeks to 6 months after intervention delivery (T₁ ). Differences were assessed with χ² , Kruskal-Wallis, and McNemar tests and pairwise comparisons as appropriate. INT metrics and audio recordings were analyzed with descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Between October 2016 and October 2019, 943 of 1108 Latina participants (85%) completed both surveys. At T₁ , INT participants were more likely (P < .001) to report seeing their MBD results in the letter (70.2%) than UC (53.1%) or ENH participants (55.1%). The percentage of INT women who reported speaking with a provider about MBD (29.0%) was significantly greater (P < .001) than the percentage of UC (14.7%) or ENH participants (15.6%). All groups saw significant (P < .001) but nondifferential improvements in their knowledge of MBD as a masking and risk factor. In the INT group, the promotora delivered education to 77.1% of the 446 participants randomized to INT and answered questions at 28.3% of the encounters for an average of $4.70 per participant.

CONCLUSIONS

Among Latinas in a low-resource setting, MBD knowledge may increase with written or interpersonal education, but with modest investment, interpersonal education may better improve MBD awareness and prompt patient-provider discussions.

Evaluating the Extended Parallel Process Model's Danger Control Predictions in the Context of Dense Breast Notification Laws

This study evaluates predictions central to the extended parallel process model (EPPM) in the context of dense breast notifications. Many EPPM propositions have gone untested and competing predictions to the model have been evaluated to an even lesser extent. Also left as an open question is exactly how perceived threat and efficacy constructs should be treated in health communication research. Using experimental data collected from women likely to receive dense breast notification letters (i.e., aged 40 to 50 years) in states with and without dense breast notification legislation, this study explicitly tests EPPM predictions regarding danger control responses. These data were largely unsupportive of the EPPM's predictions and instead finds that negative affect is more of a direct predictor of intention than expected. These data also provide evidence supporting the separate treatment of the perceived severity, susceptibility, self-efficacy, and response efficacy variables, contrary to convention in EPPM research. Implications for breast density research and EPPM theorizing are discussed in light of these findings.

Breast cancer worry, uncertainty, and perceived risk following breast density notification in a longitudinal mammography screening cohort

BACKGROUND

Dense breast notification (DBN) legislation aims to increase a woman's awareness of her personal breast density and the implications of having dense breasts for breast cancer detection and risk. This information may adversely affect women's breast cancer worry, perceptions of risk, and uncertainty about screening, which may persist over time or vary by sociodemographic factors. We examined short- and long-term psychological responses to DBN and awareness of breast density (BD).

METHODS

In a predominantly Hispanic New York City screening cohort (63% Spanish-speaking), ages 40-60 years, we assessed breast cancer worry, perceived breast cancer risk, and uncertainties about breast cancer risk and screening choices, in short (1-3 months)- and long-term (9-18 months) surveys following the enrollment screening mammogram (between 2016 and 2018). We compared psychological responses by women's dense breast status (as a proxy for DBN receipt) and BD awareness and examined multiplicative interaction by education, health literacy, nativity, and preferred interview language.

RESULTS

In multivariable models using short-term surveys, BD awareness was associated with increased perceived risk (odds ratio (OR) 2.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99, 5.20 for high, OR 2.19, 95% CI 1.34, 3.58 for moderate, vs. low risk) in the overall sample, and with increased uncertainty about risk (OR 1.97 per 1-unit increase, 95% CI 1.15, 3.39) and uncertainty about screening choices (OR 1.73 per 1-unit increase, 95% CI 1.01, 2.9) in Spanish-speaking women. DBN was associated with decreased perceived risk among women with at least some college education (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.11, 0.89, for high, OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.29, 0.89, for moderate vs. low risk), while those with a high school education or less experienced an increase (OR 3.01, 95% CI 1.05, 8.67 high vs. low risk). There were no associations observed between DBN or BD awareness and short-term breast cancer worry, nor with any psychological outcomes at long-term surveys.

CONCLUSIONS

Associations of BD awareness and notification with breast cancer-related psychological outcomes were limited to short-term increases in perceived breast cancer risk dependent on educational attainment, and increases in uncertainty around breast cancer risk and screening choices among Spanish-speaking women.

Supplemental Cancer Screening for Women With Dense Breasts: Guidance for Health Care Professionals

Mammography is the standard for breast cancer screening. The sensitivity of mammography in identifying breast cancer, however, is reduced for women with dense breasts. Thirty-eight states have passed laws requiring that all women be notified of breast tissue density results in their mammogram report. The notification includes a statement that differs by state, encouraging women to discuss supplemental screening options with their health care professionals (HCPs). Several supplemental screening tests are available for women with dense breast tissue, but no established guidelines exist to direct HCPs in their recommendation of preferred supplemental screening test. Tailored screening, which takes into consideration the patient's mammographic breast density and lifetime breast cancer risk, can guide breast cancer screening strategies that are more comprehensive. This review describes the benefits and limitations of the various available supplemental screening tests to guide HCPs and patients in choosing the appropriate breast cancer screening.

Breast Density Awareness and Knowledge in a Mammography Screening Cohort of Predominantly Hispanic Women: Does Breast Density Notification Matter?

BACKGROUND

New York State law mandates that women with dense breasts receive a written notification of their breast density (BD) and its implications, but data on the impact of dense breast notification (DBN) on BD awareness and knowledge in diverse populations remain limited.

METHODS

Between 2016 and 2018, we collected survey and mammographic data from 666 women undergoing screening mammography in New York City (ages 40-60, 80% Hispanic, 69% Spanish-speaking) to examine the impact of prior DBN on BD awareness by sociodemographic and breast cancer risk factors, and describe BD knowledge by sources of information.

RESULTS

Only 24.8% of the overall sample and 34.9% of women receiving DBN had BD awareness. In multivariable models adjusting for DBN, awareness was significantly lower in women who were Spanish-speaking [OR, 0.16; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.09-0.30 vs. English speakers], were foreign-born (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.16-0.58 vs. U.S.-born), and had lower educational attainment (e.g., high school degree or less; OR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.08-0.26 vs. college or higher degree). Women receiving DBN were more likely to be aware of BD (OR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.59-4.27) but not more knowledgeable about the impact of BD on breast cancer risk and detection. However, women reporting additional communication about their BD showed greater knowledge in these areas.

CONCLUSIONS

DBN increases BD awareness disproportionately across sociodemographic groups.

IMPACT

Efforts to improve communication of DBN must focus on addressing barriers in lower socioeconomic and racially and ethnically diverse women, including educational and language barriers.

A Multisite Study of a Breast Density Deep Learning Model for Full-Field Digital Mammography and Synthetic Mammography

PURPOSE

To develop a Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast density deep learning (DL) model in a multisite setting for synthetic two-dimensional mammographic (SM) images derived from digital breast tomosynthesis examinations by using full-field digital mammographic (FFDM) images and limited SM data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A DL model was trained to predict BI-RADS breast density by using FFDM images acquired from 2008 to 2017 (site 1: 57 492 patients, 187 627 examinations, 750 752 images) for this retrospective study. The FFDM model was evaluated by using SM datasets from two institutions (site 1: 3842 patients, 3866 examinations, 14 472 images, acquired from 2016 to 2017; site 2: 7557 patients, 16 283 examinations, 63 973 images, 2015 to 2019). Each of the three datasets were then split into training, validation, and test. Adaptation methods were investigated to improve performance on the SM datasets, and the effect of dataset size on each adaptation method was considered. Statistical significance was assessed by using CIs, which were estimated by bootstrapping.

RESULTS

Without adaptation, the model demonstrated substantial agreement with the original reporting radiologists for all three datasets (site 1 FFDM: linearly weighted Cohen κ [κ_w] = 0.75 [95% CI: 0.74, 0.76]; site 1 SM: κ_w = 0.71 [95% CI: 0.64, 0.78]; site 2 SM: κ_w = 0.72 [95% CI: 0.70, 0.75]). With adaptation, performance improved for site 2 (site 1: κ_w = 0.72 [95% CI: 0.66, 0.79], 0.71 vs 0.72, P = .80; site 2: κ_w = 0.79 [95% CI: 0.76, 0.81], 0.72 vs 0.79, P < .001) by using only 500 SM images from that site.

CONCLUSION

A BI-RADS breast density DL model demonstrated strong performance on FFDM and SM images from two institutions without training on SM images and improved by using few SM images.Supplemental material is available for this article.Published under a CC BY 4.0 license.

Dense Breast Notification Laws' Association With Outcomes in the US Population: A Cross-Sectional Study

OBJECTIVE

Understanding whether states' breast density notifications are associated with desired effects, or disparities, can inform federal policy. We examined self-reported receipt of personal breast density information, breast density discussions with providers, knowledge about density's masking effect, and association with increased breast cancer risk by state legislation status and women's sociodemographic characteristics.

METHODS

Cross-sectional observational population-based telephone survey of women aged >40 years who underwent mammography within prior 2 years, had no history of breast cancer, and had heard the term "breast density."

RESULTS

Among 2,306 women, 57% received personal breast density information. Multivariate regression models adjusted for covariates indicated that women in notification states were 1.5 times more likely to receive density information, and older Black and Asian women of lower income and lower health literacy were less likely. Overall, only 39% of women discussed density with providers; women in notification states were 1.75 times as likely. Older and Asian women were less likely to have spoken with providers; women with high literacy or prior biopsy were more likely. State legislation status was not associated with differences in density knowledge, but Hispanic women and women of lower income or low health literacy had less knowledge regarding density's masking effects; older women were more knowledgeable. Hispanic women and women of lower income or low health literacy were more likely, and middle-aged women less likely, to recognize increased breast cancer risk.

DISCUSSION

Some positive effects were observed, but sociodemographic disparities suggest tailoring of future breast density communications for specific populations of women to ensure equitable understanding.

Understanding the response of mammography facilities to breast density notification

BACKGROUND

State-specific breast density notification legislation requires that women undergoing mammography be informed about breast density, with variation among states. Because mammography facilities are among the main points of contact for women undergoing mammography, research is needed to understand how facilities communicate information on breast density, cancer risk, and supplemental screening to women.

METHODS

A cross-sectional, 50-item, mailed survey of 156 American College of Radiology-certified mammography facilities in North Carolina was conducted in 2017 via the Tailored Design Method. Breast density notification practices, supplemental screening services, and patient educational materials were compared by supplemental screening availability via t tests and chi-square tests.

RESULTS

All responding facilities (n = 94; 60.3% response rate) notified women of their breast density in the mammography results letter. Breast cancer risk assessments were performed by 36.2% of the facilities, with risk information communicated in the final radiology report for the referring provider to discuss with the woman (79.4%) or in the results letter (58.8%). Supplemental breast cancer screening was offered by 63.8% of the facilities, with use based on multiple factors, including recommendations from the referring physician (63.3%) or reading radiologist (63.3%), breast density (48.3%), other risk factors (48.3%), and patient request (40.0%). Although 75.0% of the facilities offered breast density educational materials, only 36.6% offered educational materials on supplemental screening.

CONCLUSIONS

In a state with a breast density notification law, mammography facilities communicate breast density, cancer risk, and supplemental screening information to women through various approaches. When supplemental screening is offered, facilities use multiple decision-making criteria rather than breast density alone.

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.

Comparison of Readability of Official Public Health Information About COVID-19 on Websites of International Agencies and the Governments of 15 Countries

This cross-sectional study evaluates the readability of information on COVID-19 on websites of international agencies, governments of 15 countries, and US health departments.

Impact of Improved Screening Mammography Recall Lay Letter Readability on Patient Follow-Up

PURPOSE

In the setting of abnormal results on screening mammography, the Mammography Quality Standards Act mandates that patients receive a mailed "recall" lay letter informing them to return for additional follow-up imaging. The language used in this letter should be "easily understood by a lay person." In February 2019, the authors' institution revised the language of its recall lay letter to the sixth grade reading level. The purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of improved readability on patient follow-up rates.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, data from all screening mammograms at a single institution with BI-RADS category 0 assessments excluding technical recalls between February 2018 to February 2019 (pre-intervention group) and February 2019 to February 2020 (post-intervention group) were reviewed. The primary outcome measure was the percentage of patients in each intervention group who returned for their diagnostic follow-up examination within 60 days (the standard recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was done to estimate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for follow-up within 60 days.

RESULTS

This study included 1,987 patients in the pre-intervention group and 2,211 patients in the post-intervention group. The patient follow-up rate within 60 days increased from 90.1% (1,790 of 1,987) in the pre-intervention group to 93.9% (2,076 of 2,211) in the post-intervention group (P < .001). When controlling for imaging site, patients in the post-intervention group had 1.96-fold increased odds of returning for a diagnostic follow-up examination within 60 days (95% confidence interval, 1.52-2.53).

CONCLUSIONS

Revising an institution's recall lay letter to a lower reading grade level significantly improved timely patient follow-up.

Dense Breast Notification Laws, Education, and Women's Awareness and Knowledge of Breast Density: a Nationally Representative Survey

BACKGROUND

To date, 38 states have enacted dense breast notification (DBN) laws mandating that mammogram reports include language informing women of risks related to dense breast tissue.

OBJECTIVE

Nationally representative survey to assess the association between residing in a state with a DBN law and women's awareness and knowledge about breast density, and breast cancer anxiety.

DESIGN

Internet survey conducted in 2018 with participants in KnowledgePanel®, an online research panel.

PARTICIPANTS

English-speaking US women ages 40-59 years without a personal history of breast cancer who had received at least one screening mammogram (N = 1928; survey completion rate 68.2%).

MAIN MEASURES

(1) Reported history of increased breast density, (2) knowledge of the increased risk of breast cancer with dense breasts, (3) knowledge of the masking effect of dense breasts on mammography, and (4) breast cancer anxiety.

KEY RESULTS

Women residing in DBN states were more likely to report increased breast density (43.6%) compared with women residing in non-DBN states (32.7%, p < 0.01, adjusted odds ratio, 1.70, 95% CI,1.34-2.17). Interaction effect between DBN states and education status showed that the impact of DBN on women's reporting of dense breasts was significant for women with greater than high school education, but not among women with a high school education or less (p value = 0.01 for interaction). Only 23.0% of women overall knew that increased breast density was associated with a higher risk of breast cancer, and 68.0% of women understood that dense breasts decreased the sensitivity of mammography. There were no significant differences between women in DBN states and non-DBN states for these outcomes, or for breast cancer-related anxiety.

CONCLUSIONS

State DBN laws were not associated with increased understanding of the clinical implications of breast density. DBN laws were associated with a higher likelihood of women reporting increased breast density, though not among women with lower education.

Breast cancer supplemental screening: Women's knowledge and utilization in the era of dense breast legislation

Background

Given the growth in dense breast notification (DBN) legislation in the United States, we examined the association between different types of DBN laws and supplemental screening behaviors among women.

Methods

We surveyed in March–April 2018 a nationally representative sample of women aged 40‐59 years who received a routine screening mammogram in the past 18 months. Survey items included the following topics regarding supplemental screening: discussing risks or benefits with a provider, knowledge about the risk of false positives, and utilization. We grouped women by state DBN into non‐DBN, generic DBN (mentions breast density but not supplemental screening), DBN that mentions supplemental screening (DBN‐SS), and DBN with mandated insurance coverage for supplemental screening (DBN‐coverage), and estimated adjusted predicted probabilities for supplemental screening behaviors.

Results

Of 1641 women surveyed, 21.3% resided in non‐DBN, 41.2% in generic DBN, 25.8% in DBN‐SS, and 12.5% in DBN‐coverage states. Overall, 23.0% of respondents had discussed supplemental screening with a provider, 11.3% of whom discussed the risks, and 49.5% discussed the benefits. In adjusted analysis, women living in DBN‐coverage states were more likely to discuss supplemental screening (27.5%) than women in non‐DBN states (13.6%); pairwise contrast 13.8% (95% CI, 2.1% to 25.6%; P = .01). They were also more likely to have received supplemental screening for increased breast density (19.3%) compared to women living in non‐DBN (9.9%); contrast 9.4% (95% CI, 1.6% to 17.3%; P = .01), Generic DBN (7.3%); difference 12.0% (95% CI, 4.6% to 19.4%; P =< .001), and DBN‐SS (8.8%); contrast 10.5% (95% CI, 2.6% to 18.5%; P < .01) states.

Conclusions

Women in DBN‐coverage states were more likely to discuss supplemental screening with their providers, and to undergo supplemental screening, compared to women in states with other types of DBN laws, or without DBN laws.

Dense Breast Notification Letters: What Do Breast Radiologists Think?

OBJECTIVE

The Food and Drug Administration is currently creating national standards for language used in letters sent to women after mammography concerning dense breasts. The purpose of the current study is to survey breast radiologists on their opinions about language to be included in dense breast notification (DBN) letters.

METHODS

An anonymous survey (17 questions and 10 open-ended response fields) was sent to Society of Breast Imaging members between May 2019 and June 2019. Analyses were conducted using a chi-square test and the generalized linear model.

RESULTS

A total of 262 surveys were completed (25% response rate). The majority of breast radiologists believe letters should be sent to patients (91%), with most (66%) believing that patients should receive DBN letters regardless of having dense breasts or not. The majority of breast radiologists believe DBNs should be sent to referring physicians (69%), include statements that define masking (89%), inform patients that dense breasts are associated with cancer risk (77%), inform patients about the possible benefits of supplemental screening (86%), be written at the sixth- or eighth-grade reading level (92%), and should be provided in other languages in addition to English (89%); half of the respondents (51%) believe the letters should contain BI-RADS density descriptors.

CONCLUSION

There is consensus that patients and referring physicians should receive DBN letters and that those letters should address masking, increased cancer risk, and supplemental screening. Respondents believe the letters should be written at a sixth- or eighth-grade reading level.

Knowledge and Perception of Breast Density, Screening Mammography, and Supplemental Screening: in Search of "Informed"

BACKGROUND

As of 2019, 37 US states have breast density notification laws. No qualitative study to date has examined women's perspectives about breast density in general or by states with and without notification laws.

OBJECTIVE

Explore women's knowledge and perceptions of breast density and experiences of breast cancer screening across three states with and without notification laws.

DESIGN

Qualitative research design using four focus groups conducted in 2017.

PARTICIPANTS

Forty-seven women who had a recent normal mammogram and dense breasts in registry data obtained through the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

APPROACH

Focus groups were 90 min, audio recorded, and transcribed for analysis. Data were analyzed using mixed deductive and inductive coding.

KEY RESULTS

Women reported variable knowledge levels of personal breast density and breast density in general, even among women living in states with a notification law. A number of women were aware of the difficulty of detecting cancer with dense breasts, but only one knew that density increased breast cancer risk. Across all states, very few women reported receiving information about breast density during healthcare visits beyond being encouraged to get supplemental imaging or to pay for new mammography technology (i.e., breast tomosynthesis). Women offered more imaging or different technology held strong convictions that these were "better," even though knowledge of differences, effectiveness, or harms across technologies seemed limited. Women from all states expressed a strong desire for more information about breast density.

CONCLUSIONS

More research needs to be done to understand how the medical community can best assist women in making informed decisions related to breast density, mammography, and supplemental screening. Options to explore include improved breast density notifications and education materials about breast density, continued development of personalized risk information tools, strategies for providers to discuss evidence and options based on risk stratification, and shared decision-making.

Acceptability of an Interactive Computer-Animated Agent to Promote Patient-Provider Communication About Breast Density: a Mixed Method Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Half of women undergoing mammography have dense breasts. Mandatory dense breast notification and educational materials have been shown to confuse women, rather than empower them.

OBJECTIVE

This study used a mixed method, multi-stakeholder approach to assess acceptability of an interactive, computer-animated agent that provided breast density information to women and changes in knowledge, satisfaction, and informational needs.

DESIGN

A pre-post survey and qualitative focus groups assessed the acceptability of the computer-animated agent among women. An anonymous, online survey measuring acceptability was delivered to a multi-stakeholder group.

PARTICIPANTS

English-speaking, mammography-eligible women ages 40-74 were invited and 44 women participated in one of nine focus groups. In addition, 14 stakeholders representing primary care, radiology, patient advocates, public health practitioners, and researchers completed the online survey.

INTERVENTIONS

A prototype of a computer-animated agent was delivered to women in a group setting; stakeholders viewed the prototype independently.

MAIN MEASURES

Data collected included open-ended qualitative questions that guided discussion about the content and form of the computer-animated agent. Structured surveys included domains related to knowledge, acceptability, and satisfaction. Stakeholder acceptability was measured with a series of statements about aspects of the intervention and delivery approach and are reported as the proportion of respondents who endorsed each statement.

KEY RESULTS

Six of 12 knowledge items demonstrated improvement post-intervention, satisfaction with the agent was high (81%), but the number of unanswered questions did not improve (67% vs. 54%, p = 0.37). Understanding of the distinction between connective and fatty tissue in the breast did not increase (30% vs. 26%, p = 0.48). Results of the multi-stakeholder survey suggest broad acceptability of the approach and agent.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings highlight the benefits of a brief interactive educational exposure as well as misperceptions that persisted. Results demonstrate the need for an evidence-based, accessible intervention that is easy to understand for patients.

Evaluation of existing patient educational materials and development of a brochure for women with dense breasts

OBJECTIVES

In this pilot study, we developed and assessed acceptability of a brochure for women with dense breasts.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We measured Flesch-Kincaid Readability of 22 existing breast density educational materials. We then developed a brochure and tested it in two populations of women: 44 safety net hospital patients and 13 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium stakeholders.

RESULTS

Average grade score of existing materials was 10.0 (range: 5.5-12.7). Our brochure had a grade score of 5.9, and patients reported it was easy to understand.

CONCLUSION

Our plain language brochure could improve patient understanding following mandatory dense breast notification.

Physician Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Regarding Breast Density

Background: Many states have enacted breast density laws, requiring that women be informed of their breast density status; however there is currently no consensus for screening guidelines or recommendations for women with dense breasts. The objective of this study is to access physician views about breast density and their practices for breast cancer screening of women with dense breasts in light of breast density laws. Materials and Methods: Setting: Academic medical centers, community and private practices mostly in New York City. Participants: Primary care providers (PCPs), radiologists and gynecologists. Procedure: We conducted the study through anonymous, self-administered surveys about physician knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding screening of women with dense breasts. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess differences between PCPs and specialists. Results: We received 155 responses of which 75% were female, 77% were attending-level physicians, 42% were PCPs, 28% were radiologists, 17% were gynecologists, and 9% other. Almost half of the respondents (48%) were unaware of breast density laws, and two-thirds (67%) felt they needed more education about breast density and supplemental screening. More than half of the respondents (62%) were unaware of the increased risk of breast cancer related to dense breasts. Compared to specialists, PCPs were less aware of their state's breast density laws (odds ratio [OR] 0.21; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09-0.50) and of the increased breast cancer risk for women with dense breasts (OR 0.23; 95% CI 0.09-0.60). Conclusion: Breast density laws have not translated into greater knowledge of breast density and recommendations for supplemental screening among PCPs.

Characteristics of State Policies Impact Health Care Delivery: An Analysis of Mammographic Dense Breast Notification and Insurance Legislation

BACKGROUND

Increased breast tissue density may mask cancer and thus decrease the diagnostic sensitivity of mammography. A patient group advocacy led to the implementation of laws to increase the awareness of breast tissue density and to improve access to supplemental imaging in many states. Given limited evidence about best practices, variation exists in several characteristics of adopted policies.

OBJECTIVE

To identify which characteristics of state-level policies with regard to dense breast tissue were associated with increased use of downstream breast ultrasound.

RESEARCH DESIGN

This was a retrospective series of monthly cross-sections of screening mammography procedures before and after implementation of laws.

SUBJECTS

A sample of 13,481,554 screening mammography procedures extracted from the MarketScan Research database performed between 2007 and 2014 on privately insured women aged 40-64 years that resided in a state that had implemented relevant legislation during that period.

MEASURES

The outcome was an indicator of whether breast ultrasound imaging followed a screening mammography procedure within 30 days. The main independent variables were policy characteristics indicators.

RESULTS

Notification of patients about issues surrounding increased breast density was associated with increased follow-up by ultrasound by 1.02 percentage points (P=0.016). Some policy characteristics such as the explicit suggestion of supplemental imaging or mandated coverage of supplemental imaging by health insurance augmented that effect. Other policy characteristics moderated the effect.

CONCLUSIONS

The heterogeneous effect of state legislation with regard to dense breast tissue on screening mammography follow-up by ultrasound may be explained by specific and unique characteristics of the approaches taken by a variety of states.

Randomized Trial of Personalized Breast Density and Breast Cancer Risk Notification

BACKGROUND

Despite widespread implementation of mammographic breast density (MBD) notification laws, the impact of these laws on knowledge of MBD and knowledge of breast cancer risk is limited by the lack of tools to promote informed decision-making in practice.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and evaluate whether brief, personalized informational videos following a normal mammogram in addition to a legislatively required letter about MBD result can improve knowledge of MBD and breast cancer risk compared to standard care (i.e., legislatively required letter about MBD included with the mammogram result).

DESIGN/PARTICIPANTS

Prospective randomized controlled trial of English-speaking women, age 40-74 years, without prior history of breast cancer, receiving a screening mammogram with a normal or benign finding (intervention group n = 235, control group n = 224).

INTERVENTION

brief (3-5 min) video, personalized to a woman's MBD result and breast cancer risk.

MAIN MEASURES

Primary outcomes were a woman's knowledge of her MBD and risk of breast cancer. Secondary outcomes included whether a woman reported that she discussed the results of her mammogram with her primary care provider (PCP).

KEY RESULTS

Relative to women in the control arm, women in the intervention arm had greater improvement in their knowledge of both their personal MBD (intervention pre/post 39.2%/ 77.5%; control pre/post 36.2%/ 37.5%; odds ratio (OR) 5.34 for change for intervention vs. control, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.87-7.36; p < 0.001) and risk of breast cancer (intervention pre/post: 66.8%/74.0%; control pre/post 67.9%/ 65.2%; OR 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09-1.84; p = 0.01). Women in the intervention group were more likely than those in the control group to report discussing the results of their mammogram with their PCP (p = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Brief, personalized videos following mammography can improve knowledge of MBD and personal risk of breast cancer compared to a legislatively mandated informational letter. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02986360).

Association of State Dense Breast Notification Laws With Supplemental Testing and Cancer Detection After Screening Mammography

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the association of state dense breast notification (DBN) laws with use of supplemental tests and cancer diagnosis after screening mammography.

METHODS

We examined screening mammograms (n = 1 441 544) performed in 2014 and 2015 among privately insured women aged 40 to 59 years living in 9 US states that enacted DBN laws in 2014 to 2015 and 25 US states with no DBN law in effect. DBN status at screening mammography was categorized as no DBN, generic DBN, and DBN that mandates notification of possible benefits of supplemental screening (DBN+SS). We used logistic regression to examine the change in rate of supplemental ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, breast biopsy, and breast cancer detection.

RESULTS

DBN+SS laws were associated with 10.5 more ultrasounds per 1000 mammograms (95% CI = 3.0, 17.6 per 1000; P = .006) and 0.37 more breast cancers detected per 1000 mammograms (95% CI = 0.05, 0.69 per 1000; P = .02) compared with no DBN law. No significant differences were found for generic DBN laws in either ultrasound or cancer detection.

CONCLUSIONS

DBN legislation is associated with increased use of ultrasound and cancer detection after implementation only when notification of the possible benefits of supplemental screening is required.

Supplemental Screening for Women with Dense Breasts: What Do Practicing Radiologists Recommend?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate radiologists' supplemental screening recommendations for women with dense breasts, at average, intermediate, or high risk of breast cancer, and to determine if there are differences between their recommendations for their patients, their friends and family, and themselves.

METHODS

This is an anonymous survey of Society of Breast Imaging (SBI) members. Demographics, knowledge of breast density as a risk factor, and recommendations for screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), ultrasound (US), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in women with dense breasts, at average, intermediate, or high- risk of breast cancer were assessed. The likelihood of their recommending the screening test for their patients, their family and friends, and themselves was assessed on a Likert scale from 0 to 4 (0 = "not at all likely" to 4 = "extremely likely").

RESULTS

There were 295 responses: 67% were women, and breast imaging comprised 95% of their practice. Among participants, 53% correctly answered the question on relative risk of breast cancer when comparing extremely dense versus fatty breasts, and 57% when comparing heterogeneously dense versus scattered breasts. US is recommended at a relatively low rate (1.0-1.4 on the 0-4 scale), regardless of risk. DBT is recommended at a relatively high rate (2.5-3.0 on the 0-4 scale), regardless of risk status. MR is recommended mainly for those at high risk (3.6 on the 0-4 scale). Radiologists were more likely to recommend additional imaging for themselves than for their patients and their family and friends.

CONCLUSION

For women with dense breasts, radiologists are "somewhat likely" to recommend US and "likely" to "very likely" to recommend DBT regardless of risk group. They are "very likely" to recommend MRI for high-risk groups.

Double reading of automated breast ultrasound with digital mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening

PURPOSE

To evaluate the impact of double reading automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) when added to full field digital mammography (FFDM) or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) for breast cancer screening.

METHODS

From April 2014 to June 2015, 124 women with dense breasts and intermediate to high breast cancer risk were recruited for screening with FFDM, DBT, and ABUS. Readers used FFDM and DBT in clinical practice and received ABUS training prior to study initiation. FFDM or DBT were first interpreted alone by two independent readers and then with ABUS. All recalled women underwent diagnostic workup with at least one year of follow-up. Recall rates were compared using the sign test; differences in outcomes were evaluated using Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

Of 121 women with complete follow-up, all had family (35.5%) or personal (20.7%) history of breast cancer, or both (43.8%). Twenty-four women (19.8%) were recalled by at least one modality. Recalls increased from 5.0% to 13.2% (p = 0.002) when ABUS was added to FFDM and from 3.3% to 10.7% (p = 0.004) when ABUS was added to DBT. Findings recalled by both readers were more likely to result in a recommendation for short term follow-up imaging or tissue biopsy compared to findings recalled by only one reader (100% vs. 42.1%, p = 0.041). The cancer detection rate was 8.3 per 1000 screens (1/121); mode of detection: FFDM and DBT.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding ABUS significantly increased the recall rate of both FFDM and DBT screening. Double reading of ABUS during early phase adoption may reduce false positive recalls.

"You probably can't feel as safe as normal women": Hispanic women's reactions to breast density notification

BACKGROUND

Patient advocacy has led to state-level legislative mandates for the release of personal mammographic breast density information to women undergoing screening mammography. More research is needed to understand the impact of this information on women's perceptions and mammography screening behavior.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were conducted in English and Spanish with 24 self-identified Hispanic women who had undergone at least 1 mammogram since breast density notification was enacted in New York State. The women ranged in age from 43 to 63 years. Women were asked about their understanding and perceptions of the communication of New York State-mandated breast density information, and any actions they have taken or would take in response to this information. A content analysis of the qualitative data from the translated and transcribed interviews was conducted.

RESULTS

The majority of participants had no prior knowledge of breast density and expressed confusion and apprehension regarding the meaning of dense breasts when presented with the notification information. Many participants understood having dense breasts to be a serious and abnormal condition, and reported feelings of worry and vulnerability. Participants mostly expressed a strong interest in learning about breast density and obtaining additional and more frequent breast cancer screening tests. These behavioral intentions were consistent with participants' overall favorable view of breast cancer screening and a belief that their faith, as well as regular screening, can help to protect them from breast cancer morbidity and mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Hispanic women conveyed proactive breast cancer screening intentions in response to breast density notification, despite inadequate comprehension of this information and negative emotional responses.

A Qualitative Study of Spanish-Speakers' Experience with Dense Breast Notifications in a Massachusetts Safety-Net Hospital

BACKGROUND

Legislation requiring mammography facilities to notify women if they have dense breast tissue found on mammography has been enacted in 34 US states. The impact of dense breast notifications (DBNs) on women with limited English proficiency (LEP) is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to understand Spanish-speaking women's experience receiving DBNs in a Massachusetts safety-net hospital.

DESIGN

Eligible women completed one audio-recorded, semi-structured interview via telephone with a native Spanish-speaking research assistant trained in qualitative methods. Interviews were professionally transcribed verbatim and translated. The translation was verified by a third reviewer to ensure fidelity with audio recordings.

PARTICIPANTS

Nineteen Spanish-speaking women ages 40-74 who received mammography with a normal result and recalled receiving a DBN.

APPROACH

Using the verified English transcripts, we conducted a content analysis to identify women's perceptions and actions related to receiving the notification. A structured codebook was developed. Transcripts were independently coded and assessed for agreement with a modification of Cohen's kappa. Content codes were grouped to build themes related to women's perceptions and actions after receiving a DBN.

KEY RESULTS

Nineteen Spanish-speaking women completed interviews. Nine reported not receiving the notification in their native language. Four key themes emerged: (1) The novelty of breast density contributed to notification-induced confusion; (2) women misinterpreted key messages in the notification; (3) varied actions were taken to seek further information; and (4) women held unrealized expectations and preferences for follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Not having previous knowledge of breast density and receiving notifications in English contributed to confusion about its meaning and inaccurate interpretations of key messages by Spanish speakers. Tools that promote understanding should be leveraged in seeking equity in risk-based breast cancer screening for women with dense breasts.

Breast Density Notification Letters and Websites: Are They Too "Dense"?

PURPOSE

To evaluate grade-level readability of dense breast notification letters (DBNs) and popular websites.

METHODS

HIPAA-compliant, institutional review board-exempt study. As of April 2018, letter characteristics and grade-level readability were evaluated from states with mandated text using five readability metrics, one of which was the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level. For states that had mandated DBNs in 2016, the 2016 data were compared with 2018. Readability was also assessed for common websites about dense breasts.

RESULTS

Thirty states had mandated text for DBNs. All were written above a Flesch-Kincaid sixth-grade level. Eight state DBNs were around or below a Flesch-Kincaid eighth-grade level. Connecticut was the highest (19.4) and Alabama and New York lowest (both at 7.2). For all states, the mean readability score using the five metrics exceeded an eighth-grade level. Of states that had updated DBNs since 2016, only one state significantly improved readability (Missouri 13.1 to 8.5). All DBNs discussed that breast density may mask cancer on a mammogram, 20 discussed the association with increased risk of breast cancer, and 23 discussed supplemental screening. For websites, the range of Flesch-Kincaid grade-level readability was 6 to 11.3. The lowest was the American Cancer Society dense breast website (6.0) followed by ACR dense breast patient pamphlet (7.2).

CONCLUSION

As of 2018, the mean readability score using five metrics for all state-mandated DBNs exceeded an eighth-grade reading level. Compared with 2016, only one state significantly decreased DBN grade-level readability. Publicly available websites performed relatively better.