Search

The article compares two of the most followed indices in the monitoring of COVID-19 epidemic cases: the Rt and the RDt indices. The first was disseminated by the Italian National Institute of Health (ISS) and the second, which is more usable due to the lower difficulty of calculation and the availability of data, was adopted by various regional and local institutions. The rationale for the Rt index refers to that for the R0 index, the basic reproduction number, which is used by infectivologists as a measure of contagiousness of a given infectious agent in a completely susceptible population. The RDt index, on the other hand, is borrowed from the techniques of time series analysis for the trend of an event measurement that develops as a function of time. The RDt index does not take into account the time of infection, but the date of the diagnosis of positivity and for this reason it is defined as diagnostic replication index, as it aims to describe the intensity of the development of frequency for cases recognized as positive in the population. The comparison between different possible applications of the methods and the use of different types of monitoring data was limited to four areas for which complete individual data were available in March and April 2020. The main problems in the use of Rt, which is based on the date of symptoms onset, arise from the lack of completeness of this information due both to the difficulty in the recording and to the absence in asymptomatic subjects. The general trend of RDt, at least at an intermediate lag of 6 or 7 days, is very similar to that of Rt, as confirmed by the very high value of the correlation index between the two indices. The maximum correlation between Rt and RDt is reached at lag 7 with a value of R exceeding 0.97 (R2=0.944). The two indices, albeit formally distinct, are both valid; they show specific aspects of the phenomenon, but provide basically similar information to the public health decision-maker. Their distinction lies not so much in the method of calculation, rather in the use of different information, i.e., the beginning of symptoms and the swabs outcome. Therefore, it is not appropriate to make a judgment of preference for one of the two indices, but only to invite people to understand their different potentials so that they can choose the one they consider the most appropriate for the purpose they want to use it for.

Background There is still lack of consensus on the benefit-harm balance of breast cancer screening. In this scenario, women's values and preferences are crucial for developing health-related recommendations. In the context of the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer, we conducted a systematic review to inform the European Breast Guidelines. Methods We searched Medline and included primary studies assessing women's values and preferences regarding breast cancer screening and diagnosis decision making. We used a thematic approach to synthesise relevant data. The quality of evidence was determined with GRADE, including GRADE CERQual for qualitative research. Results We included 22 individual studies. Women were willing to accept the psychological and physical burden of breast cancer screening and a significant risk of overdiagnosis and false-positive mammography findings, in return for the benefit of earlier diagnosis. The anxiety engendered by the delay in getting results of diagnostic tests was highlighted as a significant burden, emphasising the need for rapid and efficient screening services, and clear and efficient communication. The confidence in the findings was low to moderate for screening and moderate for diagnosis, predominantly because of methodological limitations, lack of adequate understanding of the outcomes by participants, and indirectness. Conclusions Women value more the possibility of an earlier diagnosis over the risks of a false-positive result or overdiagnosis. Concerns remain that women may not understand the concept of overdiagnosis. Women highly value time efficient screening processes and rapid result delivery and will accept some discomfort for the peace of mind screening may provide.

Background: Women treated for breast cancer are followed-up for monitoring of treatment effectiveness and for detecting recurrences at an early stage. The type of follow-up received may affect women's reassurance and impact on their quality of life. Anxiety and depression among women with breast cancer has been described, but little is known about how the intensity of the follow-up can affect women's psychological status. This study was undertaken to evaluate the effects of intensive vs. less-intensive follow-up on different health outcomes, to determine what are women's preferences and values regarding the follow-up received, and also assess the costs of these different types of follow-up. Methods: A systematic review following standard Cochrane Collaboration methods was carried out to assess the efficacy of intensive follow-up versus non-intensive follow-up in breast cancer patients. Two additional reviews on women's preferences and economic evidence were also carried out. The search was performed up to January 2016 in: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PDQ, McMaster Health Systems Evidence, CENTRAL, and NHS EED (through The Cochrane Library). The quality of evidence was assessed by GRADE (for quantitative studies) and CerQUAL (for qualitative studies). Several outcomes including mortality, breast cancer recurrences, quality of life, and patient satisfaction were evaluated. Results: Six randomised trials (corresponding to 3534 women) were included for the evaluation of health outcomes; three studies were included for women's values and preferences and four for an economic assessment. There is moderate certainty of evidence showing that intensive follow-up, including more frequent diagnostic tests or visits, does not have effects on 5-or 10-year overall mortality and recurrences in women with breast cancer, compared with less intensive follow-up. Regarding women's preferences and values, there was important variability among studies and within studies (low confidence due to risk of bias and inconsistency). Furthermore, intensive follow-up, as opposed to less intensive follow-up, is not likely to be cost-effective. Conclusions: Less intensive follow-up appears to be justified and can be recommended over intensive follow-up. Resources could thus be mobilised to other aspects of breast cancer care, or other areas of healthcare.

The European Union Council Recommendation of 2 December 2003 on cancer screening suggests the implementation of organised, population-based breast cancer screening programmes based on mammography every other year for women aged 50 to 69 years, ensuring equal access to screening, taking into account potential needs for targeting particular socioeconomic groups. A European survey on coverage and participation, and key organisational and policy characteristics of the programmes, targeting years 2010 and 2014, was undertaken in 2014. Overall, 27 countries contributed to this survey, 26 of the 28 European Union member states (92.9%) plus Norway. In 2014, 25 countries reported an ongoing population-based programme, one country reported a pilot programme and another was planning a pilot. In eight countries, the target age range was broader than that proposed by the Council Recommendation, and in three countries the full range was not covered. Fifteen countries reported not reaching some vulnerable populations, such as immigrants, prisoners and peoplewithout health insurance, while 22 reported that participation was periodically monitored by socioeconomic variables (e.g. age and territory). Organised, population-based breast cancer screening programmes based on routine mammograms are in place in most EU member states. However, there are still differences in the way screening programmes are implemented, and participation by vulnerable populations should be encouraged. post-print 1179 KB

This survey, conducted by the Italian breast screening network (GISMa), collects yearly individual data on diagnosis and treatment on about 50% of all screen-detected, operated lesions in Italy. The 2010 results show good overall quality and an improving trend over time. Critical issues were identified, including waiting times and compliance with the recommendations on not performing frozen section examination on small lesions. Preoperative diagnosis improved constantly over the years, but there is still a large variation between regions and programmes. For almost 90% of screen-detected invasive cancers the sentinel lymph node technique (SLN) was performed on the axilla, avoiding a large number of potentially harmful dissections. On the other hand, potential overuse of SLN for ductal carcinoma in situ deserves further investigation. The detailed results have been distributed, also by means of a web data warehouse, to regional and local screening programmes in order to allow multidisciplinary discussion and identification of the appropriate solutions to any issues documented by the data. It should be assigned priority to the problem of waiting times. Specialist Breast Units with adequate case volume and enough resources would provide the best setting for making monitoring effective in producing quality improvements with shorter waiting times.