Availability Versus Utilization of Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening Post Passage of Breast Density Legislation

<strong><em>Objective:</em></strong> 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. <strong><em>Methods:</em></strong> 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. <strong><em>Results:</em></strong> The survey response rate was 60.3% (94/156). Among the 94 respondents, 64.0% (<em>n</em>&thinsp;=&thinsp;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%; <em>p</em>-value&thinsp;=&thinsp;0.019), referring physician (75.0% vs. 50.0%; <em>p</em>-value&thinsp;=&thinsp;0.045), and reading radiologist (78.1% vs. 46.4%; <em>p</em>-value&thinsp;=&thinsp;0.011). <strong><em>Conclusion:</em></strong> In our study, supplemental screening modalities were widely available, with facilities more likely to use DBT for supplemental screening compared to other modalities.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
UNC Libraries
Published
2025-07-15
DOI
https://doi.org/10.17615/vg2x-mx68
Primary Topic
Digital Radiography and Breast Imaging
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Availability Versus Utilization of Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening Post Passage of Breast Density Legislation

Robert Agans, Louise M. Henderson, Thad Benefield, Sheila Lee et al.
UNC Libraries
Digital Radiography and Breast Imaging
article

Availability Versus Utilization of Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening Post Passage of Breast Density Legislation

Robert Agans, Louise M. Henderson, Thad Benefield, Sheila Lee, Michael P. Pritchard, Katie Earnhardt, Mary W. Marsh
article en

Abstract

<strong><em>Objective:</em></strong> 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. <strong><em>Methods:</em></strong> 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. <strong><em>Results:</em></strong> The survey response rate was 60.3% (94/156). Among the 94 respondents, 64.0% (<em>n</em>&thinsp;=&thinsp;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%; <em>p</em>-value&thinsp;=&thinsp;0.019), referring physician (75.0% vs. 50.0%; <em>p</em>-value&thinsp;=&thinsp;0.045), and reading radiologist (78.1% vs. 46.4%; <em>p</em>-value&thinsp;=&thinsp;0.011). <strong><em>Conclusion:</em></strong> In our study, supplemental screening modalities were widely available, with facilities more likely to use DBT for supplemental screening compared to other modalities.

UNC Libraries
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 49%
Digital Radiography and Breast Imaging
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.