Provision of follow‑up care for women with a history of breast cancer following the 2016 position paper by the Italian Group for Mammographic Screening and the Italian College of Breast Radiologists by SIRM: a survey of Senonetwork Italian breast centres

Introduction 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. Objective A survey of breast centres associated with Senonetwork, the Italian network of breast cancer services, has ofered the opportunity to assess the implementation of this recommendation. Methods 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. Results 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 signifcant 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. Conclusion Screening programmes have still a marginal role in active breast cancer follow-up

Integrating mammography screening programmes into specialist breast centres in Italy: insights from a national survey of Senonetwork breast centres

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

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis with Synthesized Two-Dimensional Images versus Full-Field Digital Mammography for Population Screening: Outcomes from the Verona Screening Program.

The purpose of this study was to examine the outcomes of a breast cancer screening program based on digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus synthesized two-dimensional (2D) mammography compared with those after full-field digital mammography (FFDM). This prospective study included 16 666 asymptomatic women aged 50–69 years who were recruited in April 2015 through March 2016 for DBT plus synthetic 2D screening in the Verona screening program. A comparison cohort of women screened with FFDM (n = 14 423) in the previous year was included. Screening detection measures for the two groups were compared by calculating the proportions associated with each outcome, and the relative rates (RRs) were estimated with multivariate logistic regression

Quantitative Breast Density in Contrast-Enhanced Mammography

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) demonstrates a potential role in personalized screening models, in particular for women at increased risk and women with dense breasts. In this study, volumetric breast density (VBD) measured in CEM images was compared with VBD obtained from digital mammography (DM) or tomosynthesis (DBT) images. A total of 150 women who underwent CEM between March 2019 and December 2020, having at least a DM/DBT study performed before/after CEM, were included. Low-energy CEM (LE-CEM) and DM/DBT images were processed with automatic software to obtain the VBD. VBDs from the paired datasets were compared by Wilcoxon tests. A multivariate regression model was applied to analyze the relationship between VBD differences and multiple independent variables certainly or potentially affecting VBD. Median VBD was comparable for LE-CEM and DM/DBT (12.73% vs. 12.39%), not evidencing any statistically significant difference (p = 0.5855). VBD differences between LE-CEM and DM were associated with significant differences of glandular volume, breast thickness, compression force and pressure, contact area, and nipple-to-posterior-edge distance, i.e., variables reflecting differences in breast positioning (coefficient of determination 0.6023; multiple correlation coefficient 0.7761). Volumetric breast density was obtained from low-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography and was not significantly different from volumetric breast density measured from standard mammograms

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Cancer Screening versus Full Field Digital Mammography Cancer Screening: Imaging and Pathological Features

no availabl

Comparison of breast cancers detected in the Verona screening program following transition to digital breast tomosynthesis screening with cancers detected at digital mammography screening.

The Verona population-based breast cancer (BC) screening program provides biennial mammography to women aged 50–69 years. Based on emerging evidence of enhanced detection, the program transitioned to digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening. This is a prospective pilot evaluation of DBT with synthesised 2D mammography screening implemented during April 2015–March 2017; the rate and characteristics of cancers detected at DBT screening were compared with those detected at the preceding digital mammography (DM) screening round (April 2013–March 2015) in the same screening program. Distribution of imaging and tumour characteristics were compared