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

Position paper on screening for breast cancer by the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) and 30 national breast radiology bodies from Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Israel, Lithuania, Moldova, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey.

UNLABELLED: 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 <1 % per round and overdiagnosis is only 1-10 % for a 20-year screening. Mortality reduction was also observed for the age groups 40-49 years and 70-74 years, although with "limited evidence". Thus, we firstly recommend biennial screening mammography for average-risk women aged 50-69 years; extension up to 73 or 75 years, biennially, is a second priority, from 40-45 to 49 years, annually, a third priority. Screening with thermography or other optical tools as alternatives to mammography is discouraged. Preference should be given to population screening programmes on a territorial basis, with double reading. Adoption of digital mammography (not film-screen or phosphor-plate computer radiography) is a priority, which also improves sensitivity in dense breasts. Radiologists qualified as screening readers should be involved in programmes. Digital breast tomosynthesis is also set to become "routine mammography" in the screening setting in the next future. Dedicated pathways for high-risk women offering breast MRI according to national or international guidelines and recommendations are encouraged. KEY POINTS: • EUSOBI and 30 national breast radiology bodies support screening mammography. • A first priority is double-reading biennial mammography for women aged 50-69 years. • Extension to 73-75 and from 40-45 to 49 years is also encouraged. • Digital mammography (not film-screen or computer radiography) should be used. • DBT is set to become "routine mammography" in the screening setting in the next future

Cytological Features of Palisaded Mammary-Type Myofibroblastoma

Palisaded mammary-type myofibroblastoma is a rare variant of benign stromal spindle cell tumor whose histological features are well known. Nevertheless, no cytological features have been reported to date. In this article, we describe the cytological features of a case of palisaded mammary-type myofibroblastoma in which a preoperative fine needle aspirate was obtained. Smears were moderately cellular, characterized by clusters of spindle cells, disposed in a parallel fashion and immersed in myxoid background. Although the lesion is rare, it is worth distinguishing from benign and malignant spindle cell tumors

Impact on the recall rate of digital breast tomosynthesis as an adjunct to digital mammography in the screening setting. A double reading experience and review of the literature

OBJECTIVES:To estimate the impact on recall rate (RR) of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) associated with digital mammography (DM+DBT), compared to DM alone, evaluate the impact of double reading (DR) and review the literature. METHODS: Ethics committees approved this multicenter study. Patients gave informed consent. Women recalled from population-based screening reading were included. Reference standard was histology and/or 65 1 year follow up. Negative multiple assessment was considered for patients lost at follow up. Two blinded readers (R1, R2) evaluated first DM and subsequently DM+DBT. RR, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV), were calculated for R1, R2, and DR. Cohen \u3ba and \u3c7(2) were used for R1-R2 agreement and RR related to breast density. RESULTS: We included 280 cases (41 malignancies, 66 benign lesions, and 173 negative examinations). The RR reduction was 43% (R1), 58% (R2), 43% (DR). Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV and NPV were: 93%, 67%, 71%, 33%, 98% for R1; 88%, 73%, 75%, 36%, 97% for R2; 98%, 55%, 61%, 27%, 99% for DR. The agreement was higher for DM+DBT (\u3ba=0.459 versus \u3ba=0.234). Reduction in RR was independent from breast density (p=0.992). CONCLUSION: DBT was confirmed to reduce RR, as shown by 13 of 15 previous studies (reported reduction 6-82%, median 31%). This reduction is confirmed when using DR. DBT allows an increased inter-reader agreement