[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
Figure.  Women’s Perception of Comparative Risk of Breast Density With Other Known Breast Cancer Risk Factors
Women’s Perception of Comparative Risk of Breast Density With Other Known Breast Cancer Risk Factors

The figure shows the percentage of women who answered that having the other risk factor put a woman at greater risk compared with dense breasts. Family history is defined as having a mother or sister who has or had breast cancer. Other race included women identifying as mixed race or another race or ethnicity. Data were missing for the following categories: being overweight or obese, 23; having 1 or more drinks of alcohol per day, 23; first-degree family history of breast cancer, 15; never having children, 27; having a breast biopsy, 32; and race and ethnicity, 1.

Table 1.  Survey and Interview Participant Characteristics
Survey and Interview Participant Characteristics
Table 2.  Perceived Breast Cancer Risk Factors, Ranked by Frequency of Mention by Interviewed Respondents
Perceived Breast Cancer Risk Factors, Ranked by Frequency of Mention by Interviewed Respondents
Table 3.  Perceived Actions to Reduced Breast Cancer Risk, Ranked by Frequency of Mention by Interviewed Respondents
Perceived Actions to Reduced Breast Cancer Risk, Ranked by Frequency of Mention by Interviewed Respondents
1.
Nazari  SS, Mukherjee  P.  An overview of mammographic density and its association with breast cancer.   Breast Cancer. 2018;25(3):259-267. doi:10.1007/s12282-018-0857-5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Sprague  BL, Gangnon  RE, Burt  V,  et al.  Prevalence of mammographically dense breasts in the United States.   J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(10):dju255. doi:10.1093/jnci/dju255PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Tamimi  RM, Spiegelman  D, Smith-Warner  SA,  et al.  Population attributable risk of modifiable and nonmodifiable breast cancer risk factors in postmenopausal breast cancer.   Am J Epidemiol. 2016;184(12):884-893. doi:10.1093/aje/kww145PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Pharoah  PDP, Antoniou  AC, Easton  DF, Ponder  BAJ.  Polygenes, risk prediction, and targeted prevention of breast cancer.   N Engl J Med. 2008;358(26):2796-2803. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa0708739PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
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. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa062790PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Advani  SM, Zhu  W, Demb  J,  et al; Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.  Association of breast density with breast cancer risk among women aged 65 years or older by age group and body mass index.   JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(8):e2122810. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.22810PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Engmann  NJ, Golmakani  MK, Miglioretti  DL, Sprague  BL, Kerlikowske  K; Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.  Population-attributable risk proportion of clinical risk factors for breast cancer.  [published correction appears in JAMA Oncol. 2019 Nov 1;5(11):1643].  JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(9):1228-1236. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.6326PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Cheraghi  Z, Poorolajal  J, Hashem  T, Esmailnasab  N, Doosti Irani  A.  Effect of body mass index on breast cancer during premenopausal and postmenopausal periods: a meta-analysis.   PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e51446. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051446PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
DenseBreast-info. State Legislation Map. Accessed May 24, 2022. https://densebreast-info.org/legislative-information/state-legislation-map/
10.
Rhodes  DJ, Radecki Breitkopf  C, Ziegenfuss  JY, Jenkins  SM, Vachon  CM.  Awareness of breast density and its impact on breast cancer detection and risk.   J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(10):1143-1150. doi:10.1200/JCO.2014.57.0325PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Rhodes  DJ, Jenkins  SM, Hruska  CB, Vachon  CM, Breitkopf  CR.  Breast density awareness, knowledge, and attitudes among US women: national survey results across 5 years.   J Am Coll Radiol. 2020;17(3):391-404. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2019.11.003PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Miles  RC, Lehman  C, Warner  E, Tuttle  A, Saksena  M.  Patient-reported breast density awareness and knowledge after breast density legislation passage.   Acad Radiol. 2019;26(6):726-731. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2018.07.004PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Schifferdecker  KE, Tosteson  ANA, Kaplan  C,  et al.  Knowledge and perception of breast density, screening mammography, and supplemental screening: in search of “informed.”   J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35(6):1654-1660. doi:10.1007/s11606-019-05560-zPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Kyanko  KA, Hoag  J, Busch  SH,  et al.  Dense breast notification laws, education, and women’s awareness and knowledge of breast density: a nationally representative survey.   J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35(7):1940-1945. doi:10.1007/s11606-019-05590-7PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Klinger  EV, Kaplan  CP, St Hubert  S, Birdwell  RL, Haas  JS.  Patient and provider perspectives on mammographic breast density notification legislation.   MDM Policy Pract. Published online November 17, 2016. doi:10.1177/2381468316680620PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Santiago-Rivas  M, Benjamin  S, Andrews  JZ, Jandorf  L.  Breast density awareness and knowledge, and intentions for breast cancer screening in a diverse sample of women age eligible for mammography.   J Cancer Educ. 2019;34(1):90-97. doi:10.1007/s13187-017-1271-yPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Gunn  C, Battaglia  T, Paasche-Orlow  M, West  A, Kressin  N.  Women’s perceptions of dense breast notifications in a Massachusetts safety net hospital: “so what is that supposed to mean?”   Patient Educ Couns. 2018;101(6):1123-1129. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2018.01.017PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Nickel  B, Copp  T, Brennan  M, Farber  R, McCaffery  K, Houssami  N.  The impact of breast density information or notification on women’s cognitive, psychological, and behavioral outcomes: a systematic review.   J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021;113(10):1299-1328. doi:10.1093/jnci/djab016PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
O’Brien  BC, Harris  IB, Beckman  TJ, Reed  DA, Cook  DA.  Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations.   Acad Med. 2014;89(9):1245-1251. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Kressin  NR, Battaglia  TA, Wormwood  JB, Slanetz  PJ, Gunn  CM.  Dense breast notification laws’ association with outcomes in the US population: a cross-sectional study.   J Am Coll Radiol. 2021;18(5):685-695. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2020.11.012PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Kressin  NR, Wormwood  JB, Battaglia  TA, Slanetz  PJ, Gunn  CM.  A letter is not enough: women’s preferences for and experiences of receiving breast density information.   Patient Educ Couns. 2022;105(7):2450-2456. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2022.03.014PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Kressin  NR, Wormwood  JB, Battaglia  TA, Gunn  CM.  Differences in breast density awareness, knowledge, and plans based on state legislation status and sociodemographic characteristics.   J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35(6):1923-1925. doi:10.1007/s11606-019-05578-3PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Morris  NS, MacLean  CD, Chew  LD, Littenberg  B.  The Single Item Literacy Screener: evaluation of a brief instrument to identify limited reading ability.   BMC Fam Pract. 2006;7(1):21. doi:10.1186/1471-2296-7-21PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
IBM Corporation. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0 [computer program]. IBM Corp; 2019.
25.
American Association for Public Opinion Research. Best Practices for Survey Research. Accessed November 16, 2022. https://www.aapor.org/AAPOR_Main/media/publications/Standard-Definitions20169theditionfinal.pdf
26.
Miles  MB, Huberman  AM, Saldana  J. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. 4th ed. Sage Publications; 2020.
27.
Scott  KW, Howell  D.  Clarifying analysis and interpretation in grounded theory: using a conditional relationship guide and reflective coding matrix.   Int J Qual Methods. 2008;7(2):1-15. doi:10.1177/160940690800700201Google ScholarCrossref
28.
Pacsi-Sepulveda  AL, Shelton  RC, Rodriguez  CB, Coq  AT, Tehranifar  P.  “You probably can’t feel as safe as normal women”: Hispanic women’s reactions to breast density notification.   Cancer. 2019;125(12):2049-2056. doi:10.1002/cncr.32002PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Gunn  CM, Fitzpatrick  A, Waugh  S,  et al.  A qualitative study of Spanish-speakers’ experience with dense breast notifications in a Massachusetts safety-net hospital.   J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(2):198-205. doi:10.1007/s11606-018-4709-yPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Haber  G, Ahmed  NU, Pekovic  V.  Family history of cancer and its association with breast cancer risk perception and repeat mammography.   Am J Public Health. 2012;102(12):2322-2329. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.300786PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Fehniger  J, Livaudais-Toman  J, Karliner  L,  et al.  Perceived versus objective breast cancer risk in diverse women.   J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2014;23(5):420-427. doi:10.1089/jwh.2013.4516PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Roberts  MC, Dusetzina  SB.  The effect of a celebrity health disclosure on demand for health care: trends in BRCA testing and subsequent health services use.   J Community Genet. 2017;8(2):141-146. doi:10.1007/s12687-017-0295-7PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Moyer  VA; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer in women: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(4):271-281. doi:10.7326/M13-2747PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Bellhouse  S, Hawkes  RE, Howell  SJ, Gorman  L, French  DP.  Breast cancer risk assessment and primary prevention advice in primary care: a systematic review of provider attitudes and routine behaviours.   Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(16):4150. doi:10.3390/cancers13164150PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
 Practice bulletin number 179: breast cancer risk assessment and screening in average-risk women.   Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130(1):e1-e16. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000002158PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(10):716-726, W-236. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-10-200911170-00008PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Siteman Cancer Center. Your disease risk: the source on prevention. Accessed June 23, 2022. https://siteman.wustl.edu/prevention/ydr/
38.
Fisher  B, Costantino  JP, Wickerham  DL,  et al.  Tamoxifen for the prevention of breast cancer: current status of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 study.   J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97(22):1652-1662. doi:10.1093/jnci/dji372PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Owens  DK, Davidson  KW, Krist  AH,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Medication use to reduce risk of breast cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2019;322(9):857-867. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.11885PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Reimers  LL, Sivasubramanian  PS, Hershman  D,  et al.  Breast cancer chemoprevention among high-risk women and those with ductal carcinoma in situ.   Breast J. 2015;21(4):377-386. doi:10.1111/tbj.12418PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Taylor  R, Taguchi  K.  Tamoxifen for breast cancer chemoprevention: low uptake by high-risk women after evaluation of a breast lump.   Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(3):242-247. doi:10.1370/afm.284PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Waters  EA, Cronin  KA, Graubard  BI, Han  PK, Freedman  AN.  Prevalence of tamoxifen use for breast cancer chemoprevention among U.S. women.   Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010;19(2):443-446. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-09-0930PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Breast Cancer Risk Reduction. Accessed November 16, 2022. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast_risk.pdf
44.
Brown  J, Soukas  C, Lin  JJ, Margolies  L, Santiago-Rivas  M, Jandorf  L.  Physician knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding breast density.   J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2019;28(9):1193-1199. doi:10.1089/jwh.2018.7429PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
Gunn  CM, Kressin  NR, Cooper  K, Marturano  C, Freund  KM, Battaglia  TA.  Primary care provider experience with breast density legislation in Massachusetts.   J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2018;27(5):615-622. doi:10.1089/jwh.2017.6539PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
46.
Maimone  S, McDonough  MD, Hines  SL.  Breast density reporting laws and supplemental screening—a survey of referring providers’ experiences and understanding.   Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2017;46(2):105-109. doi:10.1067/j.cpradiol.2016.05.001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
47.
Nickel  B, Houssami  N.  Improving breast density communication: does the provision of complex health information online work?   J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2021;30(11):1527-1528. doi:10.1089/jwh.2021.0388PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
48.
van Ravesteyn  NT, Schechter  CB, Hampton  JM,  et al; Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium and the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network.  Trade-offs between harms and benefits of different breast cancer screening intervals among low-risk women.   J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021;113(8):1017-1026. doi:10.1093/jnci/djaa218PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
49.
Oeffinger  KC, Fontham  ETH, Etzioni  R,  et al; American Cancer Society.  Breast cancer screening for women at average risk: 2015 guideline update from the American Cancer Society.   JAMA. 2015;314(15):1599-1614. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.12783PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
50.
Siu  AL; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(4):279-296. doi:10.7326/M15-2886PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
51.
Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Advanced Breast Cancer Risk Calculator. Accessed November 16, 2022. https://tools.bcsc-scc.org/AdvBC6yearRisk/#calculator
52.
Kerlikowske  K, Chen  S, Golmakani  MK,  et al.  Cumulative advanced breast cancer risk prediction model developed in a screening mammography population.   J Natl Cancer Inst. 2022;114(5):676-685. doi:10.1093/jnci/djac008PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
53.
Vegunta  S, Kling  JM, Patel  BK.  Supplemental cancer screening for women with dense breasts: guidance for health care professionals.   Mayo Clin Proc. 2021;96(11):2891-2904. doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2021.06.001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
54.
Bakker  MF, de Lange  SV, Pijnappel  RM,  et al; DENSE Trial Study Group.  Supplemental MRI screening for women with extremely dense breast tissue.   N Engl J Med. 2019;381(22):2091-2102. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1903986PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
55.
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;164(4):268-278. doi:10.7326/M15-1789PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
56.
Price  ER, Hargreaves  J, Lipson  JA,  et al; The California Breast Density Information Group.  The California Breast Density Information Group: a collaborative response to the issues of breast density, breast cancer risk, and breast density notification legislation.   Radiology. 2013;269(3):887-892. doi:10.1148/radiol.13131217PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
57.
Freer  PE, Slanetz  PJ, Haas  JS,  et al.  Breast cancer screening in the era of density notification legislation: summary of 2014 Massachusetts experience and suggestion of an evidence-based management algorithm by multi-disciplinary expert panel.   Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;153(2):455-464. doi:10.1007/s10549-015-3534-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
58.
Collins  IM, Steel  E, Mann  GB,  et al.  Assessing and managing breast cancer risk: clinicians’ current practice and future needs.   Breast. 2014;23(5):644-650. doi:10.1016/j.breast.2014.06.014PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
59.
Kaplan  CP, Livaudais-Toman  J, Tice  JA,  et al.  A randomized, controlled trial to increase discussion of breast cancer in primary care.   Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014;23(7):1245-1253. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-1380PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
60.
Anderson  EE, Hoskins  K.  Individual breast cancer risk assessment in underserved populations: integrating empirical bioethics and health disparities research.   J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2012;23(4)(suppl):34-46. doi:10.1353/hpu.2012.0178PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
61.
Walker  JG, Licqurish  S, Chiang  PP, Pirotta  M, Emery  JD.  Cancer risk assessment tools in primary care: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.   Ann Fam Med. 2015;13(5):480-489. doi:10.1370/afm.1837PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
62.
Robinson  K. Dense breast consultation clinic: a single institution experience of a patient-centered breast imaging clinic. Presented at: Society of Breast Imaging Symposium [virtual]; May 8, 2020. Accessed June 23, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpEY6pm11hM&feature=youtu.be
Original Investigation
Oncology
January 23, 2023

Perceptions of Breast Cancer Risks Among Women Receiving Mammograph Screening

Author Affiliations
  • 1The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire
  • 2Section of General Internal Medicine, Boston University Chobanian and Avedesian School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
  • 3Department of Psychology, University of New Hampshire, Durham
  • 4Department of Radiology, Boston University Chobanian and Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
  • 5Dartmouth Cancer Center, The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire
JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(1):e2252209. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.52209
Key Points

Question  How do women perceive the breast cancer risk associated with breast density, and how do they plan to mitigate their risk?

Findings  In this qualitative study of women aged 40 to 76 years, family history was perceived as the greatest risk factor for breast cancer. In interviews, few women perceived breast density as a risk factor, and one-third thought that they could not take any actions to reduce their breast cancer risk.

Meaning  Despite laws that require women to be notified about breast density, women did not describe a strong understanding of the risk associated with breast density relative to other breast cancer risk factors.

Abstract

Importance  Breast density is an independent risk factor for breast cancer. Despite the proliferation of mandated written notifications about breast density following mammography, there is little understanding of how women perceive the relative breast cancer risk associated with breast density.

Objective  To assess women’s perception of breast density compared with other breast cancer risks and explore their understanding of risk reduction.

Design, Setting, and Participants  This mixed-methods qualitative study used telephone surveys and semistructured interviews to investigate perceptions about breast cancer risk among a nationally representative, population-based sample of women. Eligible study participants were aged 40 to 76 years, reported having recently undergone mammography, had no history of prior breast cancer, and had heard of breast density. Survey participants who had been informed of their personal breast density were invited for a qualitative interview. Survey administration spanned July 1, 2019, to April 30, 2020, with 2306 women completing the survey. Qualitative interviews were conducted from February 1 to May 30, 2020.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Respondents compared the breast cancer risk associated with breast density with 5 other risk factors. Participants qualitatively described what they thought contributed to breast cancer risk and ways to reduce risk.

Results  Of the 2306 women who completed the survey, 1858 (166 [9%] Asian, 503 [27%] Black, 268 [14%] Hispanic, 792 [43%] White, and 128 [7%] other race or ethnicity; 358 [19%] aged 40-49 years, 906 [49%] aged 50-64 years, and 594 [32%] aged ≥65 years) completed the revised risk perception questions and were included in the analysis. Half of respondents thought breast density to be a greater risk than not having children (957 [52%]), having more than 1 alcoholic drink per day (975 [53%]), or having a prior breast biopsy (867 [48%]). Most respondents felt breast density was a lesser risk than having a first-degree relative with breast cancer (1706 [93%]) or being overweight or obese (1188 [65%]). Of the 61 women who were interviewed, 6 (10%) described breast density as contributing to breast cancer risk, and 43 (70%) emphasized family history as a breast cancer risk factor. Of the interviewed women, 17 (28%) stated they did not know whether it was possible to reduce their breast cancer risk.

Conclusions and Relevance  In this qualitative study of women of breast cancer screening age, family history was perceived as the primary breast cancer risk factor. Most interviewees did not identify breast density as a risk factor and did not feel confident about actions to mitigate breast cancer risk. Comprehensive education about breast cancer risks and prevention strategies is needed.

Introduction

Dense breasts, in which breasts are composed of more glandular tissue relative to fatty tissue, is an independent, nonmodifiable risk factor for breast cancer and can mask cancer on mammograms.1 Dense breast tissue is present in 40% to 50% of women undergoing screening mammography2 and is associated with a 1.2 to 4.0 times higher risk of breast cancer (depending on degree of density) compared with a 2.0 times higher risk associated with a first-degree family history of breast cancer.3-6 Other known risk factors include obesity, alcohol consumption, parity, and having a prior breast biopsy (eAppendix 1 in Supplement 1).3,7,8 Although how much each risk factor or combination of factors affects overall breast cancer risk has not been completely characterized,7 knowledge about personal risk is necessary to promote engagement in prevention, particularly for modifiable contributors, such as alcohol consumption and obesity.

Aiming to increase awareness and empower women to make informed choices about supplemental screening, laws enacted across 38 states mandate that women receive written notification about their personal breast density and its potential health implications.9 Although laws vary among states,9 they share an underlying goal of informing women about their personal breast cancer risk to promote informed decision-making about breast cancer screening and early detection.

Prior studies10-17 have evaluated the association of breast density notification laws with women’s awareness of their individual breast density, masking bias, and the risks associated with breast density. Qualitative studies have found that few women are aware of the legislation around breast density notification,15 that some women find breast density notifications to be confusing,17 and that, although most women understand that breast density could mask cancer on a mammogram, few know that breast density is an independent breast cancer risk.13 Cross-sectional surveys have found variation in women’s knowledge about breast density as a risk factor10-12,14,16; variation in knowledge across racial and ethnic groups, income, and educational levels11,14; that most women were aware of masking bias11,14,16; and that women in states that mandated breast density notification were more likely to report having dense breasts.14

Although the current literature explores women’s knowledge about breast density, a systematic review18 noted that little is known about whether women understand the risk associated with breast density compared with other risk factors or their approaches to mitigating risk. We used a national survey and qualitative interviews to examine how women perceive breast density’s cancer risk relative to other breast cancer risk factors and their understanding of actions they could take to reduce breast cancer risk.

Methods
Overview and Design

This mixed-methods qualitative study included survey data from a national, random-digit-dialing telephone survey coupled with semistructured interviews with a subset of survey respondents. Survey questions examined women’s perception of breast density in relation to other known breast cancer risks; interviews explored women’s understanding of breast cancer risk factors and actions to mitigate risk. This mixed-methods approach allowed us to examine the scope of awareness and understanding. On the basis of prior literature demonstrating differences in perceptions by sociodemographic characteristics,11,14 we examined whether risk perceptions varied by self-reported race and ethnicity and by literacy level (high literacy [HL] vs low literacy [LL]). This study was reviewed by the Boston University Medical Campus Institutional Review Board, which determined that the study met federal exemption criteria and provided a waiver of documentation of informed consent. Approval was for the qualitative interviews (survey work was conducted by an external survey firm) and at the time of transcription. All interview data was deidentified. The study followed the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) for reporting qualitative data.19

Setting and Sampling

The sampling frame consisted of 2306 participants who completed a national, random-digit-dialing survey of the effect of states’ breast density notification laws on knowledge about breast cancer risks associated with breast density. Eligible participants were aged 40 to 76 years, reported having undergone mammography in the prior 2 years, had no history of breast cancer, and had heard of breast density. Within the population-based sampling, efforts were made to ensure a sufficient sample of women from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds, from states with and without breast density notification laws, and with lower literacy levels, as detailed in prior publications.20,21 Participants were asked in the survey to self-identify their race or ethnicity. We collected race and ethnicity data to allow for oversampling across some groups to ensure that we could conduct analyses that compared findings across groups.

After completing the survey, women who reported knowing their breast density were invited to participate in a qualitative interview. Those who responded affirmatively were called to schedule an interview. We purposively sampled equal numbers of women who identified as Black, Hispanic, White, or other race or ethnicity as well as those with HL vs LL. In the survey, participants were asked to self-identify their race from a list that included Asian, Black or African American, Native American, Pacific Islander, White, mixed race, or some other race. For these analyses, anyone who responded that they were Native American, Pacific Islander, mixed race, or some other race were classified as other race. For the qualitative interviews, we included respondents who were Asian in the other race category.

Data Collection

Breast density awareness and breast cancer risk questions were adapted from measures used in prior surveys,10,11,22 with modified measures tested by patient advisory group members. Advisory group members also reviewed the interview guide. The survey firm, SSRS, conducted all surveys using a standardized interview approach (eAppendix 2 in Supplement 1). The cooperation rate for the overall survey was 85%.20 Survey administration spanned July 1, 2019, to April 30, 2020, and took approximately 10 minutes. Qualitative interviews were conducted from February 1 to May 30, 2020, and lasted 30 to 45 minutes. Qualitative interviews followed a flexible, semistructured interview guide (eAppendix 3 in Supplement 1) and were audiorecorded and transcribed. All data were collected via telephone by trained interviewers.

Statistical Analysis
Survey

This mixed-methods qualitative study focused on women’s perceptions of breast cancer risks, examining how women rate certain risks relative to the risk of breast density. Women were asked to compare the risk of breast density with 5 other breast cancer risk factors (having a first-degree relative with breast cancer, being overweight or obese, having more than 1 alcoholic drink per day, never having children, or having a prior breast biopsy). A review of data from the first 448 survey participants revealed that wording of the risk perceptions questions was confusing. We revised the questions and excluded those participants from analyses due to identified measurement error and incompatibility of responses with subsequent risk questions. For each risk factor, participants were asked the question, “Which do you think puts someone at greater risk for developing breast cancer? Having dense breasts or…” Risk factors were elicited in a random order to minimize ordering bias.

We characterized the proportion of women who said having dense breasts puts someone at a greater risk for developing breast cancer vs the alternative risk factor or “don’t know”; participants with missing responses were excluded from analyses (<1%). Bivariate χ2 analyses assessed whether the proportion of women who said having dense breasts puts someone at greater risk for developing breast cancer was associated with participants’ race and ethnicity (coded as Asian, Black, Hispanic, White, and other category not listed) or literacy level (HL or LL). Low literacy was defined as either having less than a high school education or reporting sometimes, often, or always needing assistance to complete medical forms using the validated Single Item Literacy Screener.23 We used SPSS statistics software, version 26 (IBM Inc).24 Statistical significance was defined at α = .05. We followed the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) reporting guidelines for survey data.25

Qualitative Interviews

Women were asked in an open-ended fashion what they thought contributed to breast cancer risk and how they could reduce their breast cancer risk. To organize and support analyses, we developed an analytic memo that described all observed themes.26 We used a matrix coding approach to guide development of themes and justify inclusion or exclusion of interviewees within themes.27 This approach includes arranging data within a table where individual participants represent rows and themes represent columns. We analyzed whether themes varied across literacy levels or across racial and ethnic groups. Qualitative analyses were overseen by a doctoral-level health services researcher (C.M.G.) with expertise in qualitative methods. Two masters-level trained research coordinators and 1 doctoral student participated in data collection and analysis, including co-coding and consensus determination meetings.

Results
Survey Data

Of the 2306 women who responded to the survey, 1858 (166 [9%] Asian, 503 [27%] Black, 268 [14%] Hispanic, 792 [43%] White, and 128 [7%] other race; 358 [19%] aged 40-49 years, 906 [49%] aged 50-64 years, and 594 [32%] aged ≥65 years) completed the revised risk perception questions and were included in the analysis (Table 1). In comparing risk factors with the risk associated with breast density, 1706 women (93%) viewed family history of breast cancer as the greater risk, and 1188 (65%) felt that being overweight or obese was a greater risk than breast density. Half of respondents thought that breast density was a greater risk than not having children (957 [52%]), having more than 1 alcoholic drink per day (975 [53%]), or having a prior breast biopsy (867 [48%]) (Figure). A higher proportion of women with LL compared with women with HL rated breast density as a higher risk than family history (13% vs 7%; χ21 = 12.99, P < .001), alcohol consumption (60% vs 53%; χ21 = 5.41, P = .02), and never having children (60% vs 51%; χ21 = 7.39, P = .007). A higher proportion of Black women (290 [58%]) and Hispanic women (153 [58%]) rated dense breast as a higher risk than alcohol consumption compared with women of other races (χ24 13.63, P = .009). A total of 289 Black (58%) and 153 Hispanic (58%) women also rated dense breasts as a higher risk than nulliparity than women who identified as Asian (74 [45%]), White (377 [48%]), and other race (64 [52%]) (χ24 = 17.48, P = .002).

Interview Data
Perceived Risk of Breast Cancer

Among 61 women interviewed, few women perceived breast density as contributing to their risk of developing breast cancer. Most women correctly noted that breast density could make mammograms harder to read: “It’s difficult to detect subsequent lumps or potential problem areas because of the dense breast tissue.” (Black woman, HL, respondent 7). When asked about their personal risk factors for breast cancer, few women noted that breast density could be a risk factor. One woman described her concern by saying, “Maybe 10% more worried than I was before because of the dense tissue issues. Just a slight uptick, but it’s not overwhelming” (Hispanic woman, HL, respondent 17).

Women most frequently and confidently emphasized family history of cancer or genetic factors as contributing to their own breast cancer risk (Table 2), and many viewed this as conferring very high levels of risk. One woman estimated her own risk as “probably 50/50 at this point since my mother had breast cancer” (Black woman, HL, respondent 5). Concurrently, women who had no known family history seemed to minimize the possibility of developing cancer: “I’m not worried about it because it does not run in my family. So I don’t have to worry about dodging that bullet” (Hispanic woman, LL, respondent 23).

Table 2 displays risk factors cited by women, ordered by the prevalence of the theme across participants. Reported risk factors included diet, lifestyle, smoking and environmental exposures, breast density, obesity, alcohol consumption, and reproductive history. Unlike family history, most women did not voice confidence in their understanding of other risk factors. Instead, they spoke about a series of behaviors and exposures that they perceived as related to their health overall: “We blame smoking for everything. So I’m sure smoking’s on there” (Black woman, HL, respondent 5). Few women stated that they had no knowledge of what breast cancer risk factors were: “I have no idea. All the stuff that’s been here on the news. This chemical, that chemical...” (Black woman, HL, respondent 8). We did not observe differences in understanding or perception of personal breast cancer risk by health literacy level or by racial or ethnic group.

Perceived Actions to Reduce Cancer Risk

When asked about actions that could reduce their breast cancer risk, many women described detection methods, such as breast self-examinations and mammograms, as prevention strategies. Among women who discussed mammograms or breast self-examinations, a small subset noted that screening methods would not prevent cancer but were useful for potentially detecting breast cancer earlier: “Well, if I go for my annual mammogram and do self-breast examination, I will catch whatever’s growing in my breast will be nipped in the bud...It will be taken care of before it gets out of control” (White woman, LL, respondent 54).

Women’s descriptions of risk mitigation focused on mammography, with descriptions conflating early detection and prevention. Other ideas for reducing personal breast cancer risk included improving diet, maintaining a healthy weight, quitting smoking, avoiding secondhand smoke, limiting alcohol, and exercising (Table 3). Many women suggested behaviors that they thought could improve their overall health but expressed less certainty about the direct effect on their breast cancer risk: “I try to eat a healthier lifestyle, more in the vegetable fields, less in any kind of…dairy or red meat portions. I do exercise more, but I did that for my general health, not for breast cancer” (Hispanic woman, HL, respondent 17).

Many women (17 [28%]) stated that they were not sure if it was possible to reduce their breast cancer risk or that they did not know what actions they could take to reduce their risk: “Do people even know how to prevent breast cancer? I couldn’t even say” (woman of other race, HL, respondent 30). Neither health literacy level nor race or ethnicity appeared to differentiate how women perceived actions that they could take to reduce their breast cancer risk.

Discussion

This mixed-methods qualitative study demonstrated that women perceived family history as the strongest risk factor for breast cancer, with mixed perceptions about other lifestyle or clinical risk factors in relation to breast cancer risk. Among interview respondents who knew their breast density, few women noted breast density as a breast cancer risk factor. Few women understood options for mitigating their personal breast cancer risk.

Despite breast density being associated with a 1.2 to 4 times higher risk of breast cancer,1,5,6 few women perceived breast density to be a strong personal risk factor. This finding is not surprising because prior studies11,14 have shown variable rates of women indicating that breast density contributed to breast cancer risk (23%-66%). Qualitative studies13,17,28,29 of women receiving breast density notifications found that women did not fully understand the clinical term breast density. It is possible that notification language stressing the normality of dense breast tissue in the population confers a sense of reassurance that may contribute to the downplaying of breast density as a risk factor.13,29

In both interviews and surveys, women perceived family history as highly deterministic of future breast cancer. Women without a family history believed they were safe or had limited risk based on this factor alone. Other studies30,31 have similarly found that women with family histories of breast cancer perceived their personal risk of cancer to be higher than the estimated risk associated with their family history. The emphasis on family history may be in part a result of clinical elicitation of family and genetic risk factors, including the increased emphasis on genetic testing for BRCA1/2 genes, both clinically and in popular media.32,33 A 2021 systematic review34 found that in primary care, family history is often the only risk factor elicited to counsel patients on breast cancer risk. Thus, frequent health messaging around family history and breast cancer risk may play a role in how this sample of women perceived their own breast cancer risk. Interviewed women displayed little confidence in their ability to modify their cancer risk, suggesting a need for more comprehensive education about which risk factors are amenable to intervention.

Few women identified ways in which they could reduce their breast cancer risk. When mentioned, these actions included participating in regular screening, diet and exercise, and avoiding tobacco (Table 3). Many women suggested that breast self-examinations were important to maintaining their breast health, but these examinations are no longer recommended because of a lack of evidence of benefit.35(p179)36 Women also suggested actions that they thought were generally healthy lifestyle changes, but they were not confident these actions would alter their breast cancer risk. Women may benefit from general guidance and information about cancer prevention strategies, such as tools that can help patients understand overall cancer risk and prevention options.37 Clinical treatments, such as chemoprevention agents, are available to reduce breast cancer risk for women at elevated risk (>1.7% 5-year risk as determined by a validated risk model)38,39 but were not mentioned by any interviewees. This finding is not unexpected because chemoprevention is significantly underused by the eligible population,40-42 despite being recommended for women at elevated risk.43

Limitations

This study has some limitations. Despite efforts to include a racially and ethnically diverse sample on the telephone survey panel, nonresponse bias could have influenced findings. The survey did not ask about women’s perception of the absolute risk associated with each risk factor, limiting our ability to draw conclusions about the accuracy of women’s risk perceptions. Interviewees reported being informed of their personal breast density, but we were unable to verify the nature or timing of this notification. We defined low literacy using a single-item literacy scale combined with educational level, which is an imprecise way to measure literacy, limiting our ability to draw conclusions about the direct effect of literacy on risk perception.

Conclusions

Our study, coupled with prior research,12,14,18,20 suggests that understanding of breast density’s contribution to breast cancer risk remains underappreciated by many women. Most notifications encourage women to speak with their physicians, yet prior studies15,44-47 found that many clinicians do not feel comfortable counseling on the implications of breast density and cancer risk. Efforts to communicate breast density in part are intended to align with evidence suggesting that breast cancer screening services should be tailored to personal risk to maximize the benefits and avoid undue harms,48-50 rendering conversations about risk imperative. Women with dense breasts, and thus some elevated risk, are ideal candidates for risk assessment. Tools that incorporate breast density in risk measures, such as one from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium,51,52 can inform future screening behaviors, including the opportunity for supplemental screening. Supplemental screening not only can lead to increased rates of cancer detection but also may result in more false-positive results and recall appointments.53-55 Because supplemental screening is not recommended for women at average risk,55 clinicians should use risk assessment to guide discussions with patients about tradeoffs associated with supplemental screening.

Despite available guidance on breast cancer risk assessment to inform screening decisions,56,57 such assessments are underused in primary care.58-60 Reported barriers include inadequate time, lack of integrated tools, and uncertainty in interpreting results for decision-making.58 A review61 of interventions involving the use of risk assessment tools in primary care concluded that more comprehensive interventions that combined risk assessment with decision support were more likely to have an effect on behavior. In some cases, it may be beneficial to develop partnerships between primary care and radiology to help counsel women on appropriate supplemental screening and/or preventive measures.62 In summary, future laws or regulations involving breast density notifications should ensure that communications promote a more comprehensive understanding of breast cancer risk to inform choices about screening and prevention.

Back to top
Article Information

Accepted for Publication: December 2, 2022.

Published: January 23, 2023. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.52209

Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2023 Beidler LB et al. JAMA Network Open.

Corresponding Author: Christine M. Gunn, PhD, Dartmouth Cancer Center, The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, 1 Medical Center Dr, Williamson Translational Research Bldg, Level 5, Lebanon, NH 03765 (christine.m.gunn@dartmouth.edu).

Author Contributions: Dr Wormwood had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Kressin, Battaglia, Gunn.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: Beidler, Gunn.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Kressin, Wormwood, Battaglia, Slanetz, Gunn.

Statistical analysis: Wormwood.

Obtained funding: Kressin.

Supervision: Slanetz, Gunn.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Battaglia reported receiving grants from Boston Medical Center during the conduct of the study. Dr Slanetz reported receiving royalties from Wolters-Kluwer outside the submitted work and serving as subspecialty chair of the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria Breast Imaging Panels. Dr Gunn reported receiving grants from the American Cancer Society during the conduct of the study and receiving grants from the National Cancer Institute and consultation fees from Gilead Sciences outside the submitted work.

Funding/Support: This study was supported by grant RSG-133017-CPHPS from the American Cancer Society (principal investigator, Dr Kressin). Dr Gunn was funded in part by the National Cancer Institute (K07CA221899; principal investigator, Dr Gunn).

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding source had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Disclaimer: The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Cancer Society.

Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 2.

Additional Contributions: Ariel Maschke, MA, Magdalena Pankowska, MPH, and Cristina Araujo Brinkerhoff, MA (Section of General Internal Medicine, Boston University Chobanian and Avedisian School of Medicine) contributed to qualitative data collection activities. They were all employed by Boston Medical Center at the time of their involvement with the project, and their role on the project was associated with their positions; they were not compensated for their work.

References
1.
Nazari  SS, Mukherjee  P.  An overview of mammographic density and its association with breast cancer.   Breast Cancer. 2018;25(3):259-267. doi:10.1007/s12282-018-0857-5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Sprague  BL, Gangnon  RE, Burt  V,  et al.  Prevalence of mammographically dense breasts in the United States.   J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(10):dju255. doi:10.1093/jnci/dju255PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Tamimi  RM, Spiegelman  D, Smith-Warner  SA,  et al.  Population attributable risk of modifiable and nonmodifiable breast cancer risk factors in postmenopausal breast cancer.   Am J Epidemiol. 2016;184(12):884-893. doi:10.1093/aje/kww145PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Pharoah  PDP, Antoniou  AC, Easton  DF, Ponder  BAJ.  Polygenes, risk prediction, and targeted prevention of breast cancer.   N Engl J Med. 2008;358(26):2796-2803. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa0708739PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
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. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa062790PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Advani  SM, Zhu  W, Demb  J,  et al; Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.  Association of breast density with breast cancer risk among women aged 65 years or older by age group and body mass index.   JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(8):e2122810. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.22810PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Engmann  NJ, Golmakani  MK, Miglioretti  DL, Sprague  BL, Kerlikowske  K; Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.  Population-attributable risk proportion of clinical risk factors for breast cancer.  [published correction appears in JAMA Oncol. 2019 Nov 1;5(11):1643].  JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(9):1228-1236. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.6326PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Cheraghi  Z, Poorolajal  J, Hashem  T, Esmailnasab  N, Doosti Irani  A.  Effect of body mass index on breast cancer during premenopausal and postmenopausal periods: a meta-analysis.   PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e51446. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051446PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
DenseBreast-info. State Legislation Map. Accessed May 24, 2022. https://densebreast-info.org/legislative-information/state-legislation-map/
10.
Rhodes  DJ, Radecki Breitkopf  C, Ziegenfuss  JY, Jenkins  SM, Vachon  CM.  Awareness of breast density and its impact on breast cancer detection and risk.   J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(10):1143-1150. doi:10.1200/JCO.2014.57.0325PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Rhodes  DJ, Jenkins  SM, Hruska  CB, Vachon  CM, Breitkopf  CR.  Breast density awareness, knowledge, and attitudes among US women: national survey results across 5 years.   J Am Coll Radiol. 2020;17(3):391-404. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2019.11.003PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Miles  RC, Lehman  C, Warner  E, Tuttle  A, Saksena  M.  Patient-reported breast density awareness and knowledge after breast density legislation passage.   Acad Radiol. 2019;26(6):726-731. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2018.07.004PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Schifferdecker  KE, Tosteson  ANA, Kaplan  C,  et al.  Knowledge and perception of breast density, screening mammography, and supplemental screening: in search of “informed.”   J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35(6):1654-1660. doi:10.1007/s11606-019-05560-zPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Kyanko  KA, Hoag  J, Busch  SH,  et al.  Dense breast notification laws, education, and women’s awareness and knowledge of breast density: a nationally representative survey.   J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35(7):1940-1945. doi:10.1007/s11606-019-05590-7PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Klinger  EV, Kaplan  CP, St Hubert  S, Birdwell  RL, Haas  JS.  Patient and provider perspectives on mammographic breast density notification legislation.   MDM Policy Pract. Published online November 17, 2016. doi:10.1177/2381468316680620PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Santiago-Rivas  M, Benjamin  S, Andrews  JZ, Jandorf  L.  Breast density awareness and knowledge, and intentions for breast cancer screening in a diverse sample of women age eligible for mammography.   J Cancer Educ. 2019;34(1):90-97. doi:10.1007/s13187-017-1271-yPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Gunn  C, Battaglia  T, Paasche-Orlow  M, West  A, Kressin  N.  Women’s perceptions of dense breast notifications in a Massachusetts safety net hospital: “so what is that supposed to mean?”   Patient Educ Couns. 2018;101(6):1123-1129. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2018.01.017PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Nickel  B, Copp  T, Brennan  M, Farber  R, McCaffery  K, Houssami  N.  The impact of breast density information or notification on women’s cognitive, psychological, and behavioral outcomes: a systematic review.   J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021;113(10):1299-1328. doi:10.1093/jnci/djab016PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
O’Brien  BC, Harris  IB, Beckman  TJ, Reed  DA, Cook  DA.  Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations.   Acad Med. 2014;89(9):1245-1251. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Kressin  NR, Battaglia  TA, Wormwood  JB, Slanetz  PJ, Gunn  CM.  Dense breast notification laws’ association with outcomes in the US population: a cross-sectional study.   J Am Coll Radiol. 2021;18(5):685-695. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2020.11.012PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Kressin  NR, Wormwood  JB, Battaglia  TA, Slanetz  PJ, Gunn  CM.  A letter is not enough: women’s preferences for and experiences of receiving breast density information.   Patient Educ Couns. 2022;105(7):2450-2456. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2022.03.014PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Kressin  NR, Wormwood  JB, Battaglia  TA, Gunn  CM.  Differences in breast density awareness, knowledge, and plans based on state legislation status and sociodemographic characteristics.   J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35(6):1923-1925. doi:10.1007/s11606-019-05578-3PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Morris  NS, MacLean  CD, Chew  LD, Littenberg  B.  The Single Item Literacy Screener: evaluation of a brief instrument to identify limited reading ability.   BMC Fam Pract. 2006;7(1):21. doi:10.1186/1471-2296-7-21PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
IBM Corporation. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0 [computer program]. IBM Corp; 2019.
25.
American Association for Public Opinion Research. Best Practices for Survey Research. Accessed November 16, 2022. https://www.aapor.org/AAPOR_Main/media/publications/Standard-Definitions20169theditionfinal.pdf
26.
Miles  MB, Huberman  AM, Saldana  J. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. 4th ed. Sage Publications; 2020.
27.
Scott  KW, Howell  D.  Clarifying analysis and interpretation in grounded theory: using a conditional relationship guide and reflective coding matrix.   Int J Qual Methods. 2008;7(2):1-15. doi:10.1177/160940690800700201Google ScholarCrossref
28.
Pacsi-Sepulveda  AL, Shelton  RC, Rodriguez  CB, Coq  AT, Tehranifar  P.  “You probably can’t feel as safe as normal women”: Hispanic women’s reactions to breast density notification.   Cancer. 2019;125(12):2049-2056. doi:10.1002/cncr.32002PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Gunn  CM, Fitzpatrick  A, Waugh  S,  et al.  A qualitative study of Spanish-speakers’ experience with dense breast notifications in a Massachusetts safety-net hospital.   J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(2):198-205. doi:10.1007/s11606-018-4709-yPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Haber  G, Ahmed  NU, Pekovic  V.  Family history of cancer and its association with breast cancer risk perception and repeat mammography.   Am J Public Health. 2012;102(12):2322-2329. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.300786PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Fehniger  J, Livaudais-Toman  J, Karliner  L,  et al.  Perceived versus objective breast cancer risk in diverse women.   J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2014;23(5):420-427. doi:10.1089/jwh.2013.4516PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Roberts  MC, Dusetzina  SB.  The effect of a celebrity health disclosure on demand for health care: trends in BRCA testing and subsequent health services use.   J Community Genet. 2017;8(2):141-146. doi:10.1007/s12687-017-0295-7PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Moyer  VA; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer in women: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(4):271-281. doi:10.7326/M13-2747PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Bellhouse  S, Hawkes  RE, Howell  SJ, Gorman  L, French  DP.  Breast cancer risk assessment and primary prevention advice in primary care: a systematic review of provider attitudes and routine behaviours.   Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(16):4150. doi:10.3390/cancers13164150PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
 Practice bulletin number 179: breast cancer risk assessment and screening in average-risk women.   Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130(1):e1-e16. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000002158PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(10):716-726, W-236. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-10-200911170-00008PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Siteman Cancer Center. Your disease risk: the source on prevention. Accessed June 23, 2022. https://siteman.wustl.edu/prevention/ydr/
38.
Fisher  B, Costantino  JP, Wickerham  DL,  et al.  Tamoxifen for the prevention of breast cancer: current status of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 study.   J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97(22):1652-1662. doi:10.1093/jnci/dji372PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Owens  DK, Davidson  KW, Krist  AH,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Medication use to reduce risk of breast cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2019;322(9):857-867. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.11885PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Reimers  LL, Sivasubramanian  PS, Hershman  D,  et al.  Breast cancer chemoprevention among high-risk women and those with ductal carcinoma in situ.   Breast J. 2015;21(4):377-386. doi:10.1111/tbj.12418PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Taylor  R, Taguchi  K.  Tamoxifen for breast cancer chemoprevention: low uptake by high-risk women after evaluation of a breast lump.   Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(3):242-247. doi:10.1370/afm.284PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Waters  EA, Cronin  KA, Graubard  BI, Han  PK, Freedman  AN.  Prevalence of tamoxifen use for breast cancer chemoprevention among U.S. women.   Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010;19(2):443-446. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-09-0930PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Breast Cancer Risk Reduction. Accessed November 16, 2022. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast_risk.pdf
44.
Brown  J, Soukas  C, Lin  JJ, Margolies  L, Santiago-Rivas  M, Jandorf  L.  Physician knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding breast density.   J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2019;28(9):1193-1199. doi:10.1089/jwh.2018.7429PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
Gunn  CM, Kressin  NR, Cooper  K, Marturano  C, Freund  KM, Battaglia  TA.  Primary care provider experience with breast density legislation in Massachusetts.   J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2018;27(5):615-622. doi:10.1089/jwh.2017.6539PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
46.
Maimone  S, McDonough  MD, Hines  SL.  Breast density reporting laws and supplemental screening—a survey of referring providers’ experiences and understanding.   Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2017;46(2):105-109. doi:10.1067/j.cpradiol.2016.05.001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
47.
Nickel  B, Houssami  N.  Improving breast density communication: does the provision of complex health information online work?   J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2021;30(11):1527-1528. doi:10.1089/jwh.2021.0388PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
48.
van Ravesteyn  NT, Schechter  CB, Hampton  JM,  et al; Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium and the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network.  Trade-offs between harms and benefits of different breast cancer screening intervals among low-risk women.   J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021;113(8):1017-1026. doi:10.1093/jnci/djaa218PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
49.
Oeffinger  KC, Fontham  ETH, Etzioni  R,  et al; American Cancer Society.  Breast cancer screening for women at average risk: 2015 guideline update from the American Cancer Society.   JAMA. 2015;314(15):1599-1614. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.12783PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
50.
Siu  AL; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(4):279-296. doi:10.7326/M15-2886PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
51.
Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Advanced Breast Cancer Risk Calculator. Accessed November 16, 2022. https://tools.bcsc-scc.org/AdvBC6yearRisk/#calculator
52.
Kerlikowske  K, Chen  S, Golmakani  MK,  et al.  Cumulative advanced breast cancer risk prediction model developed in a screening mammography population.   J Natl Cancer Inst. 2022;114(5):676-685. doi:10.1093/jnci/djac008PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
53.
Vegunta  S, Kling  JM, Patel  BK.  Supplemental cancer screening for women with dense breasts: guidance for health care professionals.   Mayo Clin Proc. 2021;96(11):2891-2904. doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2021.06.001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
54.
Bakker  MF, de Lange  SV, Pijnappel  RM,  et al; DENSE Trial Study Group.  Supplemental MRI screening for women with extremely dense breast tissue.   N Engl J Med. 2019;381(22):2091-2102. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1903986PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
55.
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;164(4):268-278. doi:10.7326/M15-1789PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
56.
Price  ER, Hargreaves  J, Lipson  JA,  et al; The California Breast Density Information Group.  The California Breast Density Information Group: a collaborative response to the issues of breast density, breast cancer risk, and breast density notification legislation.   Radiology. 2013;269(3):887-892. doi:10.1148/radiol.13131217PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
57.
Freer  PE, Slanetz  PJ, Haas  JS,  et al.  Breast cancer screening in the era of density notification legislation: summary of 2014 Massachusetts experience and suggestion of an evidence-based management algorithm by multi-disciplinary expert panel.   Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;153(2):455-464. doi:10.1007/s10549-015-3534-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
58.
Collins  IM, Steel  E, Mann  GB,  et al.  Assessing and managing breast cancer risk: clinicians’ current practice and future needs.   Breast. 2014;23(5):644-650. doi:10.1016/j.breast.2014.06.014PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
59.
Kaplan  CP, Livaudais-Toman  J, Tice  JA,  et al.  A randomized, controlled trial to increase discussion of breast cancer in primary care.   Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014;23(7):1245-1253. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-1380PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
60.
Anderson  EE, Hoskins  K.  Individual breast cancer risk assessment in underserved populations: integrating empirical bioethics and health disparities research.   J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2012;23(4)(suppl):34-46. doi:10.1353/hpu.2012.0178PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
61.
Walker  JG, Licqurish  S, Chiang  PP, Pirotta  M, Emery  JD.  Cancer risk assessment tools in primary care: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.   Ann Fam Med. 2015;13(5):480-489. doi:10.1370/afm.1837PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
62.
Robinson  K. Dense breast consultation clinic: a single institution experience of a patient-centered breast imaging clinic. Presented at: Society of Breast Imaging Symposium [virtual]; May 8, 2020. Accessed June 23, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpEY6pm11hM&feature=youtu.be
×