Search

Performance indicators for organised breast cancer screening programmes in Italy, 2011-2019, were evaluated.Aggregated data were gathered by the National Centre for Screening Monitoring from over 150 regional or sub-regional screening programmes in Italy. Invitation and examination coverage, participation rate (PR), recall rate (RR), detection rate, positive predictive value (PPV) for the target population as a whole (women aged 50-69), by 5-year age-class, geographical macro-area (North, Centre, South-Islands with the exception of three Regions for missing/uncomplete data) and Region were estimated.Coverage showed an increasing positive trend, especially in the South-Islands, and PR was stable all over Italy. On the other hand, an increasing RR and decreasing PPV were recorded, especially at the first screening test and in some regions.The positive increase in coverage is accompanied by a worsening of some performance indicators for which a better resource allocation and staff training are required. For this reason, further and continuous monitoring is mandatory.

Summary Breast cancer is the most frequent type of cancer affecting female patients. The introduction of breast cancer screening programs led to a substantial reduction of mortality from breast cancer. Nevertheless, doubts are being raised on the real efficacy of breast screening programs. The aim of the present paper is to review the main pathological type of cancers detected in breast cancer screening programs. Specifically, attention will be given to: in situ carcinoma, invasive carcinoma histotypes and interval cancer.

Background Radiology is an essential tool in the management of a patient. The aim of this manuscript was to build structured report (SR) Mammography based in Breast Cancer. Methods A working team of 16 experts (group A) was composed to create a SR for Mammography Breast Cancer. A further working group of 4 experts (group B), blinded to the activities of the group A, was composed to assess the quality and clinical usefulness of the SR final draft. Modified Delphi process was used to assess level of agreement for all report sections. Cronbach’s alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was used to assess internal consistency and to measure quality analysis according to the average inter-item correlation. Results The final SR version was built by including n = 2 items in Personal Data, n = 4 items in Setting, n = 2 items in Comparison with previous breast examination, n = 19 items in Anamnesis and clinical context; n = 10 items in Technique; n = 1 item in Radiation dose; n = 5 items Parenchymal pattern; n = 28 items in Description of the finding; n = 12 items in Diagnostic categories and Report and n = 1 item in Conclusions. The overall mean score of the experts and the sum of score for structured report were 4.9 and 807 in the second round. The Cronbach’s alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was 0.82 in the second round. About the quality evaluation, the overall mean score of the experts was 3.3. The Cronbach’s alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was 0.90. Conclusions Structured reporting improves the quality, clarity and reproducibility of reports across departments, cities, countries and internationally and will assist patient management and improve breast health care and facilitate research.

Aims: We analysed the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (COVID-19) on the quality of breast cancer care in certified EUSOMA (European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists) breast centres.Materials and methods: The results of the EUSOMA quality indicators were compared, based on pseudonymised individual records, for the periods 1 March 2020 till 30 June 2020 (first COVID-19 peak in most countries in Europe) and 1 March 2019 till 30 June 2019. In addition, a questionnaire was sent to the participating Centres for investigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the organisation and the quality of breast cancer care.Results: Forty-five centres provided data and 31 (67%) responded to the questionnaire. The total number of new cases dropped by 19% and there was a small significant higher tumour (p = 0.003) and lymph node (p = 0.011) stage at presentation. Comparing quality indicators (12,736 patients) by multivariable analysis showed mostly non-significant differences. Surgery could be performed in a COVID-free zone in 94% of the centres, COVID testing was performed before surgery in 96% of the centres, and surgical case load was reduced in 55% of the centres. Modifications of the indications for neoadjuvant endocrine therapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy were necessary in 23%, 23%, and 10% of the centres; changes in indications for adjuvant endocrine, chemo-, targeted, immune, and radiotherapy in 3%, 19%, 3%, 6%, and 10%, respectively.Conclusion: Quality of breast cancer care was well maintained in EUSOMA breast centres during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A small but significantly higher tumour and lymph node stage at presentation was observed.

We conducted a cross-sectional study to assess the likelihood of returning for routine breast cancer screening among women who have experienced a false-positive result (FPR) and to describe the possible individual and organizational factors that could influence subsequent attendance to the screening program. Several information were collected on demographic and clinical characteristics data. Electronic data from 2014 to 2016 related to breast screening program of the Local Health Authority (LHA) of Bologna (Italy) of women between 45 and 74 years old were reviewed. A total of 4847 women experienced an FPR during mammographic screening and were recalled to subsequent round; 80.2% adhered to the screening. Mean age was 54.2 ± 8.4 years old. Women resulted to be less likely to adhere to screening if they were not-Italian (p = 0.001), if they lived in the Bologna district (p p = 0.001), if the diagnostic tests were performed in a hospital with the less volume of activity and higher recall rate (RR) (p p

Epitheliosis (or usual duct hyperplasia) is a proliferation of epithelial and myoepithelial cells located within enlarged acini and small ducts, which is characterized by irregular and peripheral fenestration. Infiltrating epitheliosis (IE) is a specific lesion, characterized by classical epitheliosis flowing out into the adjacent stroma. The stroma is desmoplastic and shows keloid appearance with irregular elastosis. IE can mimic malignancy both on radiological and histological grounds. The aim of the present study is to describe the fine needle aspiration cytological features of 6 consecutive cases of IE, with histological correlation. IE cases presenting as screen detected lesions and preoperatively diagnosed on fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) were reviewed. All patients had radiologically breast lesions suspicious for malignancy that underwent FNAC followed by surgical resection. The FNAC smears presented some features that could lead to a misdiagnosis of malignancy, such as bloody background, high cellularity, and stromal fragments containing epithelial cells. Nevertheless, malignancy was excluded, due to the absence of atypia and the presence of myoepithelial cells in the cell clusters. IE presents a special FNAC pattern that can be misinterpreted as malignancy. Therefore, knowledge is necessary to avoid patient overtreatment.

Women who were previously treated for breast cancer (BC) are an important particular subgroup of women at intermediate BC risk. Their breast follow-up should be planned taking in consideration a 1.0-1.5 % annual rate of loco-regional recurrences and new ipsilateral or contralateral BCs during 15-20 years, and be based on a regional/district invitation system. This activity should be carried out by a Department of Radiology integrating screening and diagnostics in the context of a Breast Unit. We recommend the adoption of protocols dedicated to women previously treated for BC, with a clear definition of responsibilities, methods for invitation, site(s) of visits, methods for clinical and radiological evaluation, follow-up duration, role and function of family doctors and specialists. These women will be invited to get a mammogram in dedicated sessions starting from the year after the end of treatment. The planned follow-up duration will be at least 10 years and will be defined on the basis of patient's age and preferences, taking into consideration organizational matters. Special agreements can be defined in the case of women who have their follow-up planned at other qualified centers. Dedicated screening sessions should include: evaluation of familial/personal history (if previously not done) for identifying high-risk conditions which could indicate a different screening strategy; immediate evaluation of mammograms by one or, when possible, two breast radiologists with possible addition of supplemental mammographic views, digital breast tomosynthesis, clinical breast examination, breast ultrasound; and prompt planning of possible further workup. Results of these screening sessions should be set apart from those of general female population screening and presented in dedicated reports. The following research issues are suggested: further risk stratification and effectiveness of follow-up protocols differentiated also for BC pathologic subtype and molecular classification, and evaluation of different models of survivorship care, also in terms of cost-effectiveness.

Contains fulltext : 177890.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) EUSOBI and 30 national breast radiology bodies support mammography for population-based screening, demonstrated to reduce breast cancer (BC) mortality and treatment impact. According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the reduction in mortality is 40 % for women aged 50-69 years taking up the invitation while the probability of false-positive needle biopsy is

This position paper, issued by ICBR/SIRM and GISMa, summarizes the evidence on DBT and provides recommendations for its use. In the screening setting, DBT in adjunct to digital mammography (DM) increased detection rate by 0.5-2.7‰ and decreased false positives by 0.8-3.6% compared to DM alone in observational and double-testing experimental studies. The reduction in recall rate could be less prominent in those screening programs which already have low recall rates with DM. The increase in radiation exposure associated with DM/DBT protocols has been solved by the introduction of synthetic mammograms (sDM) reconstructed from DBT datasets. Thus, whenever possible, sDM/DBT should be preferred to DM/DBT. However, before introducing DBT as a routine screening tool for average-risk women, we should wait for the results of randomized controlled trials and for a statistically significant and clinically relevant reduction in the interval cancer rate, hopefully associated with a reduction in the advanced cancer rate. Otherwise, a potential for overdiagnosis and overtreatment cannot be excluded. Studies exploring this issue are ongoing. Screening of women at intermediate risk should follow the same recommendations, with particular protocols for women with previous BC history. In high-risk women, if mammography is performed as an adjunct to MRI or in the case of MRI contraindications, sDM/DBT protocols are suggested. Evidence exists in favor of DBT usage in women with clinical symptoms/signs and asymptomatic women with screen-detected findings recalled for work-up. The possibility to perform needle biopsy or localization under DBT guidance should be offered when DBT-only findings need characterization or surgery.

Surveillance of interval cancers (IC) lacks standardisation of review methodologies. We investigated the extent to which 'informed' or 'blinded' review may affect IC classification. This is a retrospective study of 100 validated screening mammograms (20 IC, 80 negative screens) independently reviewed by six radiologists. Three sequenced review methods with increasing information were used: (1) blinded (no IC information, case mix), (2) partially informed, and (3) fully informed. IC 'screening error' (SE) reports averaged 24% (10-40), 33% (20-55), and 42% (35-50) for phases 1, 2, and 3, while 'minimal signs' (MS) reports averaged 6% (5-15), 10% (10-20), and 20% (15-30), respectively. Negative mammograms classification was MS in 18% (7-39) or SE in 19% (11-29), respectively. MS or SE classification was more likely for method 2 (OR=1.78, p=0.033) and method 3 (OR=3.91, p=0.000) relative to method 1, but no reader effect was evident. Inter-observer agreement in classifying at method 1 was slight (k 0.20), lowest (k 0.06) for MS, and fair (k 0.25) for negative and SE categories. More 'informed' review is more likely to yield an IC classification as MS or SE. Due to expected variability, review methods need standardisation to improve screening quality. Our data support blinded review of IC in mammography screening.

To compare breast density (BD) assessment provided by an automated BD evaluator (ABDE) with that provided by a panel of experienced breast radiologists, on a multivendor dataset.Twenty-one radiologists assessed 613 screening/diagnostic digital mammograms from nine centers and six different vendors, using the BI-RADS a, b, c, and d density classification. The same mammograms were also evaluated by an ABDE providing the ratio between fibroglandular and total breast area on a continuous scale and, automatically, the BI-RADS score. A panel majority report (PMR) was used as reference standard. Agreement (κ) and accuracy (proportion of cases correctly classified) were calculated for binary (BI-RADS a-b versus c-d) and 4-class classification.While the agreement of individual radiologists with the PMR ranged from κ = 0.483 to κ = 0.885, the ABDE correctly classified 563/613 mammograms (92 %). A substantial agreement for binary classification was found for individual reader pairs (κ = 0.620, standard deviation [SD] = 0.140), individual versus PMR (κ = 0.736, SD = 0.117), and individual versus ABDE (κ = 0.674, SD = 0.095). Agreement between ABDE and PMR was almost perfect (κ = 0.831).The ABDE showed an almost perfect agreement with a 21-radiologist panel in binary BD classification on a multivendor dataset, earning a chance as a reproducible alternative to visual evaluation.Individual BD assessment differs from PMR with κ as low as 0.483. An ABDE correctly classified 92 % of mammograms with almost perfect agreement (κ = 0.831). An ABDE can be a valid alternative to subjective BD assessment.