Breast density legislation and opportunities for patient-centered outcomes research

Radiology

Volumn 264, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 632-636

  Lee, Christoph I ^a,b   Bassett, Lawrence W ^a,b   Lehman, Constance D ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b SEATTLE CANCER CARE ALLIANCE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACT; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; BREAST DENSITY; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; HIGH RISK POPULATION; IMAGE QUALITY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MAMMOGRAPHY QUALITY STANDARDS ACT; MANDATORY REPORTING; NOTE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; ONCOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PATIENT ADVOCACY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REIMBURSEMENT; STANDARD; UNITED STATES;

BIOPSY; BREAST; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MAMMOGRAPHY; MANDATORY REPORTING; MASS SCREENING; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PATIENT-CENTERED CARE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84865405214     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12120184     Document Type: Note

References (38)

1. Nyström L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Frisell J, Nordenskjöld B, Rutqvist LE. Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 2002;359(9310):909-919.
2. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;151(10):716-726, W-236. [Published correction appears in Ann Intern Med 2010;152(10):688 and Ann Intern Med 2010;152(3):199-200].
3. H.R. 1302. Breast Density and Mammography Reporting Act of 2011. U.S. Congress. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-3102. Published October 2011. Accessed November 15, 2011.
4. McCormack VA, dos Santos Silva I. Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15(6):1159-1169.
5. Byrne C, Schairer C, Wolfe J, et al. Mammographic features and breast cancer risk: effects with time, age, and menopause status. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87(21):1622-1629.
6. Boyd NF, Rommens JM, Vogt K, et al. Mammographic breast density as an intermediate phenotype for breast cancer. Lancet Oncol 2005;6(10):798-808.
7. Kerlikowske K, Ichikawa L, Miglioretti DL, et al. Longitudinal measurement of clinical mammographic breast density to improve estimation of breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007;99(5):386-395.
8. Maskarinec G, Pagano I, Lurie G, Kolonel LN. A longitudinal investigation of mammographic density: the multiethnic cohort. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15(4):732-739.
9. Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007;356(3):227-236.
10. Boyd NF, Byng JW, Jong RA, et al. Quantitative classification of mammographic densities and breast cancer risk: results from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87(9):670-675.
11. Vachon CM, van Gils CH, Sellers TA, et al. Mammographic density, breast cancer risk and risk prediction. Breast Cancer Res 2007;9(6):217.
12. Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D, et al. Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA 2012; 307(13):1394-1404.
13. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 2008;299(18):2151-2163.
14. Corsetti V, Ferrari A, Ghirardi M, et al. Role of ultrasonography in detecting mammographically occult breast carcinoma in women with dense breasts. Radiol Med (Torino) 2006;111(3):440-448.
15. Tohno E, Ueno E, Watanabe H. Ultrasound screening of breast cancer. Breast Cancer 2009;16(1):18-22.
16. Berg WA. Supplemental screening sonography in dense breasts. Radiol Clin North Am 2004;42(5):845-851, vi.
17. Smith RA, Duffy SW, Gabe R, Tabar L, Yen AM, Chen TH. The randomized trials of breast cancer screening: what have we learned? Radiol Clin North Am 2004;42(5):793-806, v.
18. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, et al. Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23(33):8469-8476.
19. Kuhl C, Weigel S, Schrading S, et al. Prospective multicenter cohort study to refine management recommendations for women at elevated familial risk of breast cancer: the EVA trial. J Clin Oncol 2010;28(9):1450-1457.
20. Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA, et al. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA 2004;292(11):1317-1325.
21. Sardanelli F, Podo F, Santoro F, et al. Multicenter surveillance of women at high genetic breast cancer risk using mammography, ultrasonography, and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (the high breast cancer risk Italian 1 study): final results. Invest Radiol 2011;46(2):94-105.
22. Vacek PM, Geller BM. A prospective study of breast cancer risk using routine mammographic breast density measurements. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2004;13(5):715-722.
23. Lehman CD, Isaacs C, Schnall MD, et al. Cancer yield of mammography, MR, and US in high-risk women: prospective multi-institution breast cancer screening study. Radiology 2007;244(2):381-388.
24. Sardanelli F, Podo F, D'Agnolo G, et al. Multicenter comparative multimodality surveillance of women at genetic-familial high risk for breast cancer (HIBCRIT study): interim results. Radiology 2007;242(3):698-715.
25. Lehman CD, Smith RA. The role of MRI in breast cancer screening. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2009;7(10):1109-1115.
26. Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin 2007;57(2):75-89.
27. Elmore JG, Fletcher SW. Overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening: time to tackle an underappreciated harm. Ann Intern Med 2012;156(7):536-537.
28. Kaplan SS. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology 2001;221(3):641-649.
29. Kelly KM, Dean J, Comulada WS, Lee SJ. Breast cancer detection using automated whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically dense breasts. Eur Radiol 2010;20(3):734-742.
30. Lander MR, Tabár L. Automated 3-D breast ultrasound as a promising adjunctive screening tool for examining dense breast tissue. Semin Roentgenol 2011;46(4):302-308.
31. Illinois Department of Insurance. Coverage for the Detection and Treatment of Breast Cancer. http://insurance.illinois.gov/health insurance/breastcancer.asp. Published July 2009. Accessed March 30, 2012.
32. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Overview. http://www.pcori.org/. Accessed March 29, 2012.
33. American College of Radiology. Ultrasound Accreditation Program. http://www.acr.org/accreditation/ultrasound.aspx. Accessed March 30, 2012.
34. Berg WA, Campassi C, Langenberg P, Sexton MJ. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;174(6):1769-1777.
35. Gold LS, Klein G, Carr L, Kessler L, Sullivan SD. The emergence of diagnostic imaging technologies in breast cancer: discovery, regulatory approval, reimbursement, and adoption in clinical guidelines. Cancer Imaging 2012;12(1):13-24.
36. Darabi H, Czene K, Zhao W, Liu J, Hall P, Humphreys K. Breast cancer risk prediction and individualised screening based on common genetic variation and breast density measurement. Breast Cancer Res 2012;14(1):R25.
37. Katz SJ, Morrow M. The challenge of individualizing treatments for patients with breast cancer. JAMA 2012;307(13):1379-1380.
38. Schousboe JT, Kerlikowske K, Loh A, Cummings SR. Personalizing mammography by breast density and other risk factors for breast cancer: analysis of health benefits and cost-effectiveness. Ann Intern Med 2011;155(1):10-20.