Abstract P2-01-01: Impact of California breast density notification law SB 1538 on California women and their health care providers
Authors: Ikeda DM , Thomas WR , Joe BN , Lindfors K , Brenner RJ , Feig S , Bassett LW , Leung JW , Ojeda-Fournier H , Hargreaves J , Price E , Lipson J , Kurian AW , Love E , Walgenbach DD , Ryan L , Durbin M , Daniel BL , Nayak L , Sickles EA 
Published: August 2014

Purpose: To describe the impact of California Breast Density Notification law (SB 1538) on policy development, policy implementation and supplemental screening strategies within California medical facilities. SB 1538 mandates that breast density information be given to patients but provides no funding for supplemental screening, no guidance on how to triage women for supplemental screening nor which imaging modalities to use.

Methods:

As a result of the law, the California Breast Density Information Group (CBDIG) formed from academic and private practice radiologists and risk assessment experts, reviewing scientific literature and nationally recognized guidelines to provide evidence-based recommendations regarding supplemental screening in women with dense breast tissue. A survey was sent to 6 academic and 3 large private practices in California to record their experience in implementing the law.

Results: CBDIG created a public, institution-neutral, evidence-based website, “breastdensity.info”, that includes information and recommendations regarding supplemental breast screening, with triage for supplemental MRI or US based on breast cancer risk assessment using genetic or family history risk models. CBDIG facilities worked with referring health care providers to inform them of the new law, educated their staff and technologists on implementing policy, and developed notification strategies to comply with legislation.

The survey showed that all 9 facilities recommended supplemental screening based on family history models or genetic testing. 3/9 calculated breast cancer risk in the breast imaging clinic, and 2/9 emailed a risk survey to the patient. 3/9 reported risk in the radiology report, and 1/9 reported risk only if the patient was high risk. Risk assessments were performed by technologists and risk assessment health practitioners. 8/9 facilities estimated breast density by visual methods, and 1/9 by computer. All facilities performed screening breast MRI, 4/9 performed handheld screening US, and 2/9 tomosynthesis. 1/9 obtained tomosynthesis in anticipation of the law, 2/9 are trying to obtain automated whole breast US, and 3/9 are trying to obtain tomosynthesis. Facilities expressed concerns about additional false-positive biopsies produced by supplemental screenings, out-of-pocket expenses for women, and disparities (low income) in notified populations.

Conclusion: SB 1538 resulted in the formation of the CBDIG and the website, “breastdensity.info”. Our survey showed variations in imaging modalities available and policy implementation at each facility. Given that several states currently have breast density laws or have laws that will become effective in the near future, it is important for breast imagers and clinicians to be informed of the current literature, realize the variation in equipment and policies at various facilities, and develop recommendation strategies to guide patients seeking supplemental screening. We plan to follow up this survey with a larger survey of the Society of Breast Imagers at a later date.

Citation Information: Cancer Res 2013;73(24 Suppl): Abstract nr P2-01-01.