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 Despite recommendations, mammography screening is often insufficiently integrated into specialist breast centres. A national, cross-sectional, voluntary, online survey on this issue was carried out among the Italian breast centres associated with Senonetwork, the Italian network of breast cancer services. Methods A 73-item questionnaire was created, pre-tested and piloted. Centres integrating and not integrating a screening programme were compared using the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) model. Centres’ clustering was performed using the Gower’s distance metric. Groups and clusters were compared with the equality-of-means test. Results The response rate was 82/128 (65%). Overall, 84% (69/82) breast centres reported a collaboration with a screening programme in performing and/or reading mammograms and in the diagnostic work-up of women with abnormal screening results. The same proportion was observed among those centres responding to all questions (62/74). Performance expectancies (or the perceived usefulness of integration in terms of clinical quality, patient convenience, ease of job, and professional growth), satisfaction and motivation were higher in those centres collaborating with the screening programme. Effort expectancy indicators (or the degree to which the respondents believe that the integration is easy to implement) and those concerning the existence of facilitating conditions were lower both in centres collaborating and not collaborating with the screening programme. Among the former, six clusters of centres, distributed from ‘no integration’ to ‘high’, were identified. In cluster analysis, the highest level of integration was associated with higher agreement that integration eases the job, offers better opportunities for professional growth, and makes the working environment more satisfactory. The least integrated cluster assigned the lowest score to the statement that local health authority made available the resources needed. Conclusions While confirming the positive effects of integrating screening programmes into breast centres, this survey has brought to light specific difficulties that must be faced. The results provide insights into the importance of integration focusing on the perspectives of professional career and motivation. The deficiency of facilitating conditions to integration is modifiable. Screening professionals’ societies may have a role as initiators of the integration. Other supporting actions may be included in health laws at the national and regional level.

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.

In 2016, the Italian Group for Mammography Screening and the Italian College of Breast Radiologists by the Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology recommended that screening programmes and specialist breast centres actively invite women with a history of breast cancer to follow-up imaging.A survey of breast centres associated with Senonetwork, the Italian network of breast cancer services, has offered the opportunity to assess the implementation of this recommendation.A national, cross-sectional, voluntary, online survey was developed, pre-tested, and administered during the months July-October 2020. Five of the 73 questionnaire items concerned breast cancer follow-up.The response rate was 82/128 (65%). Of the 82 respondent centres, 69 (84%) were involved in a screening programme. Fifty-six (68%) reported the presence of a programme of active invitation to breast cancer follow-up targeted at patients living in their catchment area, with a significant north-to-south gradient. Four centres (5%) reported that the screening programme was responsible for actively initiating follow-up during the 10-year period since diagnosis. Only after 10 years did the proportion increase moderately.Screening programmes have still a marginal role in active breast cancer follow-up.

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

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.

Screening mammogram reading volume (SMRV) and total (screening and clinical) mammogram reading volume (TMRV) per year are strongly associated with the radiologist’s diagnostic performance in breast cancer screening. The current article reports the prevalence and correlates of a SMRV and a TMRV ≥5000 among Italian breast screening radiologists. A questionnaire survey was carried out in 2013–2014 by the Italian Group for Mammography Screening (GISMa). The questionnaire included items of information for radiologist’s experience-related characteristics and for facility-level factors supposedly associated with SMRV and TMRV. Multivariate analysis was performed using backward stepwise multiple logistic regression models. Data for 235 radiologists from 51 local screening programmes were received. Of the 222 radiologists who were eligible, 133 (59.9 %) reported a SMRV ≥5000 and 163 (73.4 %) a TMRV ≥5000. Multivariate factors positively associated with both characteristics included: the number of years of experience reading mammograms; the percentage of total working time dedicated to breast imaging and breast care; the participation in diagnostic assessment; and the availability of digital tomosynthesis at facility. Full-time dedication to breast imaging and breast care was associated with the highest odds ratio for a SMRV and a TMRV ≥5000, i.e. 11.80 and 46.74, respectively, versus a percentage of time ≤50 %. An early (

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

Background The objective of this study was to evaluate if mammography screening attendance is associated with a reduction in late-stage breast cancer incidence. Methods The cohort included over 400,000 Italian women who were first invited to participate in regional screening programmes during the 1990s and were followed for breast cancer incidence for 13 years. We obtained individual data on their exposure to screening and correlated this with total and stage-specific breast cancer incidence. Socio-economic status and pre-screening incidence data were used to assess the presence of self-selection bias. Results Overall, screening attendance was associated with a 10% excess risk of in situ and invasive breast cancer (IRR = 1.10; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.06–1.14), which dropped to 5% for invasive cancers only (IRR = 1.05; 95% CI: 1.01–1.09). There were significant reductions among attenders for specific cancer stages; we observed a 39% reduction for T2 or larger (IRR = 0.61; 95% CI: 0.57–0.66), 19% for node positives (IRR = 0.81; 95% CI: 0.76–0.86) and 28% for stage II and higher (IRR = 0.72; 95% CI: 0.68–0.76). Our data suggest that the presence of self-selection bias is limited and, overall, invited women experienced a 17% reduction of advanced cancers compared with pre-screening rates. Conclusions Comparing attenders' and non-attenders' stage-specific breast cancer incidence, we have estimated that screening attendance is associated with a reduction of nearly 30% for stages II+.

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.

Computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) has been extensively reported to increase sensitivity by about 10% when added to a single reading while increasing recall rate by 12%, and its current use can be safely recommended in clinical practice. CAD has been suggested as a possible alternative to conventional double reading in screening. Uncontrolled comparison is consistent and suggests that CAD is comparable to double reading in incremental cancer detection rate (CAD +10.6%, double reading +9.1%) and possibly better in recall rate (CAD +12.5%, double reading +28.8%). However, controlled studies comparing single reading + CAD to conventional double reading are not consistent and on average suggest a lower cancer detection rate (−5.1%) and a lower recall rate (−9.8%) for CAD. Scientific evidence is not sufficient for a safe recommendation of single reading + CAD as a current alternative to conventional double reading.