ABSTRACT
Objective: To evaluate breast density notification legislation (BDNL) on breast imaging practice patterns, risk assessment, and supplemental screening. Methods: A 20-question anonymous web-based survey was administered to practicing Society of Breast Imaging radiologists in the U.S. between February and April 2021 regarding breast cancer risk assessment, supplemental screening, and density measurements. Results were compared between facilities with and without BDNL using the two-sided Fisher's exact test. Results: One hundred and ninety-seven radiologists from 41 U.S. states, with (187/197, 95%) or without (10/197, 5%) BDNL, responded. Fifty-seven percent (113/197) performed breast cancer risk assessment, and 93% (183/197) offered supplemental screening for women with dense breasts. Between facilities with or without BDNL, there was no significant difference in whether risk assessment was (P = 0.19) or was not performed (P = 0.20). There was no significant difference in supplemental screening types (P > 0.05) between BDNL and non-BDNL facilities. Thirty-five percent (69/197) of facilities offered no supplemental screening studies, and 25% (49/197) had no future plans to offer supplemental screening. A statistically significant greater proportion of non-BDNL facilities offered no supplemental screening (P < 0.03) and had no plans to offer supplemental screening compared to BDNL facilities (P < 0.02). Conclusion: Facilities in BDNL states often offer supplemental screening compared to facilities in non-BDNL states. Compared to BDNL facilities, a statistically significant proportion of non-BDNL facilities had no supplemental screening nor plans for implementation. Our data suggest that upcoming federal BDNL will impact how supplemental screening is addressed in currently non-BDNL states.
ABSTRACT
Objective: To determine the early impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on breast imaging centers in California and Texas and compare regional differences. Methods: An 11-item survey was emailed to American College of Radiology accredited breast imaging facilities in California and Texas in August 2020. A question subset addressed March-April government restrictions on elective services ("during the shutdown" and "after reopening"). Comparisons were made between states with chi-square and Fisher's tests, and timeframes with McNemar's and paired t-tests. Results: There were 54 respondents (54/240, 23%, 26 California, 28 Texas). Imaging volumes fell during the shutdown and remained below pre-pandemic levels after reopening, with reduction in screening greatest (ultrasound 12% of baseline, mammography 13%, MRI 23%), followed by diagnostic MRI (43%), procedures (44%), and diagnostics (45%). California reported higher volumes during the shutdown (procedures, MRI) and after reopening (diagnostics, procedures, MRI) versus Texas (P=0.001-0.02). Most screened patients (52/54, 96% symptoms and 42/54, 78% temperatures), and 100% (53/53) modified check-in and check-out. Reading rooms or physician work were altered for social distancing (31/54, 57%). Physician mask (45/48, 94%), gown (15/48, 31%), eyewear (22/48, 46%), and face shield (22/48, 46%) use during procedures increased after reopening versus pre-pandemic (P<0.001-0.03). Physician (47/54, 87%) and staff (45/53, 85%) financial impacts were common, but none reported terminations. Conclusion: Breast imaging volumes during the early pandemic fell more severely in Texas than in California. Safety measures and financial impacts on physicians and staff were similar in both states.