Feature | September 16, 2013

Experts Take on Challenge of Breast Density Notification Laws

Experts create a website to help navigate new state density laws

Image courtesy of Dilon.

A team of California-based breast imagers and breast cancer risk specialists have developed a website to help navigate the new challenges posed by breast density notification laws, according to a special report published online in the journal Radiology.

While mammography is considered the best single modality for population-based screening, its sensitivity is diminished by up to 20 percent in patients with dense breasts (breasts with a higher ratio of fibroglandular tissue to fat). This reduction in sensitivity is due for the most part to masking, a phenomenon in which surrounding dense breast tissue obscures a cancer on mammography.

In response, several states have adopted laws requiring patient and referring physician notification when the interpreting radiologist determines that the pattern of fibroglandular tissue on a patient’s mammogram is considered dense.

In California, mandatory reporting requirements took effect on April 1, 2013. The law requires that patients with dense breast tissue on screening mammography receive notification in writing, with advice on discussing their screening options with their primary physician.

“The legislation was prompted by breast cancer advocacy groups motivated to educate women regarding the limitations of mammography,” said Jafi A. Lipson, M.D., assistant professor of radiology at Stanford University School of Medicine in Stanford, Calif.

The California law has potentially enormous implications, as approximately 50 percent of women undergoing screening mammography are classified as having either “heterogeneously dense” or “extremely dense” breasts. For California alone, this could mean two million notification letters a year, and a significant increase in supplementary screening with MRI and ultrasound.

The broad classification of breast density under California law does not take into account the varying risk levels among patients with different breast densities. When risk is expressed relative to average breast density, the risk for the 40 percent of women with heterogeneously dense breasts is about 1.2 times greater than average and the risk for the 10 percent of women with extremely dense breasts is about 2.1times greater than average. Therefore, breast density is a risk factor, but not a strong one.

 “While additional screening for women with extremely dense breasts could prove beneficial, supplemental screening of the approximately 40 percent of California women with heterogeneously dense breasts would result in very substantial additional cost to the healthcare system,” Lipson said. “There also is concern that the increased use of supplementary screening will ultimately expose some patients to more harm, in the form of false-positive results, than good.”

To help address these challenges, Lipson and colleagues in the California Breast Density Information Group (CBDIG) created an online document to answer frequently asked questions about the efficacy, benefits and harms of supplementary screening tests.

“Increased patient awareness may be considered a benefit, although there are also potential harms of notification, including awareness without a clear path forward for women and care providers, increased unsubstantiated anxiety, potential for misunderstanding or overestimation of density-associated risk and increased propensity to over-screen,” Lipson said.

CBDIG recommends an individualized risk-based approach for guiding the decision-making process. Women with a high risk of breast cancer, such as those with the BRCA genetic mutation, are more likely to benefit from additional screening with MRI or ultrasound, or with tomosynthesis—a promising supplementary screening technology. For women with intermediate risk, the decision to have a screening MRI should be made on a case-by-case basis using a shared decision-making approach.

The benefits of additional screening are diminished in women who are not high risk, while the potential harms remain the same.

“Studies show a small number of added cancers are found with supplementary screening breast ultrasound,” Lipson said. “However, this is at the price of a large number of benign breast biopsies.”

The CBDIG researchers suggested that women who request supplementary breast screening may be rapidly triaged for assessment based on their individual risk factors.

Insurance coverage is likely to have a major impact on supplementary breast imaging. The California legislature did not mandate insurance coverage for any supplementary breast cancer screening tests, and there are no insurance billing codes for screening breast ultrasound or tomosynthesis. Only one state has a notification law and an insurance mandate, so many women who desire certain types of supplementary screening may be asked to pay out of pocket.

The CBDIG document is available online at www.breastdensity.info.

Related Content

Lunit Unveiling AI-Based Mammography Solution at RSNA 2018
News | Mammography | November 15, 2018
Medical artificial intelligence (AI) software company Lunit will be returning to the 104th Radiological Society of...
Breast Density Advocate Nancy M. Cappello Passes Away

Nancy Cappello. Image courtesy of AreYouDense.org.

News | Breast Density | November 15, 2018 | Jeff Zagoudis, Associate Editor
Imaging Technology News extends its condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of Nancy M. Cappello, Ph.D., who...
Researchers Awarded 2018 Canon Medical Systems USA/RSNA Research Grants
News | Radiology Imaging | November 13, 2018
The Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) Research & Education (R&E) Foundation recently announced the...
The MOZART Supra Specimen Tomosynthesis System is the latest generation of 3-D imaging for breast cancer surgery.
News | Breast Imaging | November 08, 2018
KUBTEC announced the launch of a new innovation in the treatment of breast cancer. The Mozart Supra Specimen...
Charles Ananian, M.D.

Charles Ananian, M.D.

Sponsored Content | Case Study | Digital Radiography (DR) | November 07, 2018
Whether it’s a premature baby or a critically ill child, treating little patients is a huge responsibility.
Results of the vertebrae-based analysis (383 vertebrae in 34 patients) for detection of BME.

Results of the vertebrae-based analysis (383 vertebrae in 34 patients) for detection of BME.

Sponsored Content | Case Study | Computed Tomography (CT) | November 06, 2018
The following is a summary of a study published in the
Deaconess Health System Chooses Sectra as Enterprise Imaging Vendor
News | Enterprise Imaging | November 02, 2018
International medical imaging information technology (IT) and cybersecurity company Sectra will install its enterprise...
Volpara Enterprise Cloud Reaches 1 Million Mammograms Stored
News | Mammography | October 31, 2018
Volpara Solutions announced that the data stored in the Volpara Enterprise cloud now exceeds 1 million mammographic...
Etta Pisano Named American College of Radiology Chief Research Officer
News | Radiology Business | October 25, 2018
October 25, 2018 — Breast imaging research pioneer Etta Pisano, M.D., FACR, has been named...
DenseBreast-info.org Launches Patient Education Video Series
News | Breast Density | October 24, 2018
DenseBreast-info.org (DB-I) announced the release of "Let's Talk About Dense Breasts," a series of three informational...