Monitoring and evaluation of breast cancer screening programmes : Selecting candidate performance indicators

In the scope of the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC) the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) subgroup was tasked to identify breast cancer screening programme (BCSP) performance indicators, including their acceptable and desirable levels, which are associated with breast cancer (BC) mortality. This paper documents the methodology used for the indicator selection. The indicators were identified through a multi-stage process. First, a scoping review was conducted to identify existing performance indicators. Second, building on existing frameworks for making well-informed health care choices, a specific conceptual framework was developed to guide the indicator selection. Third, two group exercises including a rating and ranking survey were conducted for indicator selection using pre-determined criteria, such as: relevance, measurability, accurateness, ethics and understandability. The selected indicators were mapped onto a BC screening pathway developed by the M&E subgroup to illustrate the steps of BC screening common to all EU countries. A total of 96 indicators were identified from an initial list of 1325 indicators. After removing redundant and irrelevant indicators and adding those missing, 39 candidate indicators underwent the rating and ranking exercise. Based on the results, the M&E subgroup selected 13 indicators: screening coverage, participation rate, recall rate, breast cancer detection rate, invasive breast cancer detection rate, cancers > 20 mm, cancers ≤10 mm, lymph node status, interval cancer rate, episode sensitivity, time interval between screening and first treatment, benign open surgical biopsy rate, and mastectomy rate. This systematic approach led to the identification of 13 BCSP candidate performance indicators to be further evaluated for their association with BC mortality

Imprint cytology: A rapid, reliable method of diagnosing breast malignancy

OBJECTIVE: To compare imprint cytology with fine needle aspiration biopsy and histology for the intraoperative diagnosis of breast malignancy. STUDY DESIGN: We evaluated imprint cytology, comparing it with other diagnostic techniques. Three hundred fifty-one cases (180 benign and 171 malignant) were studied by fine needle aspiration cytology, imprint cytology and histopathology. RESULTS: Imprint cytology, as compared to histopathology, had 98.3% accuracy, with 97.1% sensitivity and 99.4% specificity. Aspiration cytology was less accurate than imprint cytology as compared to histopathology (accuracy 94.9%, sensitivity 93.9%, specificity 96.2%). CONCLUSION: These data confirm the value of imprint cytology and suggest that it could be used intraoperatively as an alternative to frozen section if a pathology laboratory is not available. © 1996 The International Academy of Cytology Acta Cytologica

Interactive training for the management of breast cancer in general practice in Europe

Background. General practitioners need to play a more active role in the management of patients with breast cancer, specifically in screening programs, counseling, follow-up, palliative care, and psychosocial support. Special training is needed to meet these demands, Methods. An interactive training program resident on CD-ROM was developed. It includes nine cases designed according to the case method and three cases created for group discussions. The program also contains a self-test and an encyclopedia with facts and figures about breast cancer. The program was tested by 20 trainers/trainees in each of four participating countries. Results. The formata, content, and usefulness of the program were ranked highly: generally between 4 and 5 on a scale from I (low) to 5 (high), based on 78 evaluation forms. Conclusion. The program seems to be an adequate tool for GP training

Germ line BRCA1 & BRCA2 mutations in Greek breast/ovarian cancer families: 5382insC is the most frequent mutation observed

BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes were screened for loss-of-function mutations in a series of 85 patients having at least one first- or second-degree relative affected by breast and/or ovarian cancer. All BRCA1 exons and BRCA2 exons 10 and 11 were screened with a combination of methods including SSCP, PTT and direct sequencing. We have found disease-associated mutations in 14 families (16.5%), eleven in BRCA1 and three in BRCA2. The known founder mutation 5382insC of BRCA1 was identified in seven unrelated families. The other mutations identified include the non-sense R1751X, the splice junction variant 5586G > A of BRCA1 and three frameshifts, 2024de15, 3034del4, and 6631del5, of BRCA2. Nine out of these 14 families had a family history of three or more breast/ovarian cancer cases. A large number of polymorphic or unclassified variants is also reported. Combined with our previously published data 5382insC was found in nine out of 20 families (45%), suggesting that this mutation may represent a common founder mutation in the Greek population. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved

Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis: A Synopsis of the European Breast Guidelines.

Reproduced with permission from Author(s). Title. Ann Intern Med. 2020;172(1):46-56. https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2756145/breast-cancer-screening-diagnosis-synopsis-european-breast-guidelines ©American College of Physicians.Description: The European Commission Initiative for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis guidelines (European Breast Guidelines) are coordinated by the European Commission's Joint Research Centre. The target audience for the guidelines includes women, health professionals, and policymakers. Methods: An international guideline panel of 28 multidisciplinary members, including patients, developed questions and corresponding recommendations that were informed by systematic reviews of the evidence conducted between March 2016 and December 2018. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Evidence to Decision frameworks were used to structure the process and minimize the influence of competing interests by enhancing transparency. Questions and recommendations, expressed as strong or condi-tional, focused on outcomes that matter to women and provided a rating of the certainty of evidence. Recommendations: This synopsis of the European Breast Guidelines provides recommendations regarding organized screening programs for women aged 40 to 75 years who are at average risk. The recommendations address digital mammography screening and the addition of hand-held ultrasonography, automated breast ultrasonography, or magnetic resonance imaging compared with mammography alone. The recommendations also discuss the frequency of screening and inform decision making for women at average risk who are recalled for suspicious lesions or who have high breast density

Development and use of health outcome descriptors: a guideline development case study

Background: During healthcare guideline development, panel members often have implicit, different definitions of health outcomes that can lead to misunderstandings about how important these outcomes are and how to balance benefits and harms. McMaster GRADE Centre researchers developed ‘health outcome descriptors’ for standardizing descriptions of health outcomes and overcoming these problems to support the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC) Guideline Development Group (GDG). We aimed to determine which aspects of the development, content, and use of health outcome descriptors were valuable to guideline developers. Methods: We developed 24 health outcome descriptors related to breast cancer screening and diagnosis for the European Commission Breast Guideline Development Group (GDG). Eighteen GDG members provided feedback in written format or in interviews. We then evaluated the process and conducted two health utility rating surveys. Results: Feedback from GDG members revealed that health outcome descriptors are probably useful for developing recommendations and improving transparency of guideline methods. Time commitment, methodology training, and need for multidisciplinary expertise throughout development were considered important determinants of the process. Comparison of the two health utility surveys showed a decrease in standard deviation in the second survey across 21 (88%) of the outcomes. Conclusions: Health outcome descriptors are feasible and should be developed prior to the outcome prioritization step in the guideline development process. Guideline developers should involve a subgroup of multidisciplinary experts in all stages of development and ensure all guideline panel members are trained in guideline methodology that includes understanding the importance of defining and understanding the outcomes of interest

Methods for Development of the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer Guidelines Recommendations in the Era of Guideline Transparency

Item does not contain fulltex