Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Jun;32(6):603-609.
doi: 10.1007/s11606-016-3904-y. Epub 2016 Nov 14.

Breast Density Notification Legislation and Breast Cancer Stage at Diagnosis: Early Evidence from the SEER Registry

Affiliations

Breast Density Notification Legislation and Breast Cancer Stage at Diagnosis: Early Evidence from the SEER Registry

Ilana Richman et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2017 Jun.

Abstract

Background: Twenty-eight states have passed breast density notification laws, which require physicians to inform women of a finding of dense breasts on mammography.

Objective: To evaluate changes in breast cancer stage at diagnosis after enactment of breast density notification legislation.

Design: Using a difference-in-differences analysis, we examined changes in stage at diagnosis among women with breast cancer in Connecticut, the first state to enact legislation, compared to changes among women in control states. We used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) registry, 2005-2013.

Participants: Women ages 40-74 with breast cancer.

Intervention: Breast density notification legislation, enacted in Connecticut in October of 2009.

Main measure: Breast cancer stage at diagnosis.

Key results: Our study included 466,930 women, 25,592 of whom lived in Connecticut. Legislation was associated with a 1.38-percentage-point (95 % CI 0.12 to 2.63) increase in the proportion of women in Connecticut versus control states who had localized invasive cancer at the time of diagnosis, and a 1.12-percentage-point (95 % CI -2.21 to -0.08) decline in the proportion of women with ductal carcinoma in situ at diagnosis. Breast density notification legislation was not associated with a change in the proportion of women in Connecticut versus control states with regional-stage (-0.09 percentage points, 95 % CI -1.01 to 1.02) or metastatic disease (-0.24, 95 % CI -0.75 to 0.28). County-level analyses and analyses limited to women younger than 50 found no statistically significant associations.

Limitations: Single intervention state, limited follow-up, potential confounding from unobserved trends.

Conclusions: Breast density notification legislation in Connecticut was associated with a small increase in the proportion of women diagnosed with localized invasive breast cancer in individual-level but not county-level analyses. Whether this finding reflects potentially beneficial early detection or potentially harmful overdiagnosis is not known. Legislation was not associated with changes in regional or metastatic disease.

Keywords: breast cancer; cancer screening; health policy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.

Disclaimer

This work does not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the authors are solely responsible for its content.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Stage at diagnosis among women in Connecticut and control states. Panel A depicts the distribution of stage at diagnosis among women ages 40–74 with breast cancer in control states. Panel B depicts the distribution of stage at diagnosis among women ages 40–74 with breast cancer in Connecticut. *Breast density notification legislation was enacted in October of 2009.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Age-adjusted breast cancer incidence by stage over time. The graph depicts age-adjusted stage-specific breast cancer incidence in Connecticut and control states from 2005 to 2013. The vertical bar represents the time of enactment of breast density notification legislation in Connecticut.

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Sprague BL, Gangnon RE, Burt V, et al. Prevalence of mammographically dense breasts in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014; 106(10). doi:10.1093/jnci/dju255. - PMC - PubMed
    1. 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):227–36. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa062790. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kerlikowske K, Hubbard RA, Miglioretti DL, et al. Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):493–502. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00005. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Melnikow J, Fenton JJ, Whitlock EP, et al. Supplemental screening for breast cancer in women with dense breasts: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2016. doi:10.7326/M15-1789. - PMC - PubMed
    1. 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):1394–404. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.388. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources