Search

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.

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.

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.

• Currently mammography, ultrasound and magnetic resonance are the best radiological imaging modalities for both diagnosis and local staging of breast cancer. To date, there is no evidence on the utility of other emerging diagnostic tools. • The results of imaging are very different if performed as screening procedures in asymptomatic women or as diagnostic procedure in a symptomatic patient. • Mammography is the best technique for a panoramic image; ultrasound is an essential component for localised symptoms and for guided tissue sampling. • Mammography is the technique of choice for a BC screening protocol, but MRI is the technique of choice for very young women at high risk.

• Before a woman is a patient, she is a woman with her own biography. • The way a woman looks at her breast is a good indicator of her degree of self-confidence. • Women generally overestimate their risk of developing BC and, as a consequence, overrate the benefits that may be gained from screening or preventive measures. • Although many women with a strong family history do not have an identified genetic mutation, their potential serious risk should be properly considered. • BRCA1 and BRCA2 do not have the same effects, and recent reports show BRCA2 carriers are associated with better survival and therapeutic response than BRCA1 carriers.

• Nonoperative diagnosis should become the norm in breast disease assessment. The aim of sampling procedures should be to fulfil the “triple diagnostic assessment” and achieve as near as possible 100 % nonoperative diagnosis of breast problems. • Automated core needle biopsy (CNB) is the sampling technique of first choice, to prefer over fine needle aspiration (FNA) because of fewer inadequate samples. In most cases, CNB accomplishes the same results of an open incisional biopsy. • Ultrasound guidance, if feasible, is the technique of first choice for biopsy of both palpable and impalpable breast lesions; it is less costly, easy to perform and more accurate than free-hand or other image-guided techniques. • Management of high-risk lesions remains controversial. The likelihood of atypical ductal hyperplasia or radial scar in association with BC is related to the size of the lesion and the age of the patient.

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.