Population screening for colorectal cancer by flexible sigmoidoscopy or CT colonography: Study protocol for a multicenter randomized trial

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most prevalent type of cancer in Europe. A single flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening at around the age of 60 years prevents about one-third of CRC cases. However, FS screens only the distal colon, and thus mortality from proximal CRC is unaffected. Computed tomography colonography (CTC) is a highly accurate examination that allows assessment of the entire colon. However, the benefit of CTC testing as a CRC screening test is uncertain. We designed a randomized trial to compare participation rate, detection rates, and costs between CTC (with computer-aided detection) and FS as primary tests for population-based screening. METHODS/DESIGN: An invitation letter to participate in a randomized screening trial comparing CTC versus FS will be mailed to a sample of 20,000 people aged 58 or 60 years, living in the Piedmont region and the Verona district of Italy. Individuals with a history of CRC, adenomas, inflammatory bowel disease, or recent colonoscopy, or with two first-degree relatives with CRC will be excluded from the study by their general practitioners. Individuals responding positively to the invitation letter will be then randomized to the intervention group (CTC) or control group (FS), and scheduled for the screening procedure. The primary outcome parameter of this part of the trial is the difference in advanced neoplasia detection between the two screening tests. Secondary outcomes are cost-effectiveness analysis, referral rates for colonoscopy induced by CTC versus FS, and the expected and perceived burden of the procedures. To compare participation rates for CTC versus FS, 2,000 additional eligible subjects will be randomly assigned to receive an invitation for screening with CTC or FS. In the CTC arm, non-responders will be offered fecal occult blood test (FOBT) as alternative screening test, while in the FS arm, non-responders will receive an invitation letter to undergo screening with either FOBT or CTC. Data on reasons for participation and non-participation will also be collected. DISCUSSION: This study will provide reliable information concerning benefits and risks of the adoption of CTC as a mass screening intervention in comparison with FS. The trial will also evaluate the role of computer-aided detection in a screening setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0173960

Heterogeneity of Cortical Lesion Susceptibility Mapping in Multiple Sclerosis.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Quantitative susceptibility mapping has been used to characterize iron and myelin content in the deep gray matter of patients with multiple sclerosis. Our aim was to characterize the susceptibility mapping of cortical lesions in patients with MS and compare it with neuropathologic observations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The pattern of microglial activation was studied in postmortem brain tissues from 16 patients with secondary-progressive MS and 5 age-matched controls. Thirty-six patients with MS underwent 3T MR imaging, including 3D double inversion recovery and 3D-echo-planar SWI. RESULTS: Neuropathologic analysis revealed the presence of an intense band of microglia activation close to the pial membrane in subpial cortical lesions or to the WM border of leukocortical cortical lesions. The quantitative susceptibility mapping analysis revealed 131 cortical lesions classified as hyperintense; 33, as isointense; and 84, as hypointense. Quantitative susceptibility mapping hyperintensity edge found in the proximity of the pial surface or at the white matter/gray matter interface in some of the quantitative susceptibility mapping–hyperintense cortical lesions accurately mirrors the microglia activation observed in the neuropathology analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Cortical lesion susceptibility maps are highly heterogeneous, even at individual levels. Quantitative susceptibility mapping hyperintensity edge found in proximity to the pial surface might be due to the subpial gradient of microglial activation

Breast imaging and cancer diagnosis during the COVID-19 pandemic: recommendations from the Italian College of Breast Radiologists by SIRM

The Italian College of Breast Radiologists by the Italian Society of Medical Radiology (SIRM) provides recommendations for breast care provision and procedural prioritization during COVID-19 pandemic, being aware that medical decisions must be currently taken balancing patient\u2019s individual and community safety: (1) patients having a scheduled or to-be-scheduled appointment for in-depth diagnostic breast imaging or needle biopsy should confirm the appointment or obtain a new one; (2) patients who have suspicious symptoms of breast cancer (in particular: new onset palpable nodule; skin or nipple retraction; orange peel skin; unilateral secretion from the nipple) should request non-deferrable tests at radiology services; (3) asymptomatic women performing annual mammographic follow-up after breast cancer treatment should preferably schedule the appointment within 1\ua0year and 3\ua0months from the previous check, compatibly with the local organizational conditions; (4) asymptomatic women who have not responded to the invitation for screening mammography after the onset of the pandemic or have been informed of the suspension of the screening activity should schedule the check preferably within 3\ua0months from the date of the not performed check, compatibly with local organizational conditions. The Italian College of Breast Radiologists by SIRM recommends precautions to protect both patients and healthcare workers (radiologists, radiographers, nurses, and reception staff) from infection or disease spread on the occasion of breast imaging procedures, particularly mammography, breast ultrasound, breast magnetic resonance imaging, and breast intervention procedures

positive predictive value for malignancy on surgical excision of breast lesions of uncertain malignant potential b3 diagnosed by stereotactic vacuum assisted needle core biopsy vancb a large multi institutional study in italy

Abstract Percutaneous core biopsy (CB) has been introduced to increase the ability of accurately diagnosing breast malignancies without the need of resorting to surgery. Compared to conventional automated 14 gauge needle core biopsy (NCB), vacuum-assisted needle core biopsy (VANCB) allows obtaining larger specimens and has recognized advantages particularly when the radiological pattern is represented by microcalcifications. Regardless of technical improvements, a small percentage of percutaneous CBs performed to detect breast lesions are still classified, according to European and UK guidelines, in the borderline B3 category, including a group of heterogeneous lesions with uncertain malignant potential. We aimed to assess the prevalence and positive predictive values (PPV) on surgical excision (SE) of B3 category (overall and by sub-categories) in a large series of non-palpable breast lesions assessed through VANCB, also comparison with published data on CB. Overall, 26,165 consecutive stereotactic VANCB were identified in 22 Italian centres: 3107 (11.9%) were classified as B3, of which 1644 (54.2%) proceeded to SE to establish a definitive histological diagnosis of breast pathology. Due to a high proportion of microcalcifications as main radiological pattern, the overall PPV was 21.2% (range 10.6%–27.3% for different B3 subtypes), somewhat lower than the average value (24.5%) from published studies (range 9.9%–35.1%). Our study, to date the largest series of B3 with definitive histological assessment on SE, suggests that B3 lesions should be referred for SE even if VANCB is more accurate than NCB in the diagnostic process of non-palpable, sonographically invisible breast lesions

Highly specialized Breast Centers did not experience delay of care during COVID-19 pandemic in Italy: the Senonetwork experience

The study aims to evaluate the performance of selected, high-volume, highly specialized, Italian Breast Centers at the time of COVID-19 pandemic (year 2020), compared to pre-pandemic time (year 2019), highlighting differences in terms of clinical presentation of breast cancer (BC) and therapeutic strategies

Inflammatory intrathecal profiles and cortical damage in multiple sclerosis

OBJECTIVE: Grey matter (GM) damage and meningeal inflammation have been associated with early disease onset and a more aggressive disease course in Multiple Sclerosis (MS), but can these changes be identified in the patient early in the disease course? METHODS: To identify possible biomarkers linking meningeal inflammation, GM damage and disease severity, gene and protein expression were analysed in meninges and CSF from 27 post-mortem secondary progressive MS (SPMS) and 14 control cases. Combined cytokine/chemokine CSF profiling and 3T-MRI were performed at diagnosis in two independent cohorts of MS patients (35 and 38 subjects) and in 26 non-MS patients. RESULTS: Increased expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines (IFNγ, TNF, IL2 and IL22) and molecules related to sustained B-cell activity and lymphoid-neogenesis (CXCL13, CXCL10, LTα, IL6, IL10) was detected in the meninges and CSF of post-mortem MS cases with high levels of meningeal inflammation and GM demyelination. Similar pro-inflammatory patterns, including increased levels of CXCL13, TNF, IFNγ, CXCL12, IL6, IL8 and IL10, together with high levels of BAFF, APRIL, LIGHT, TWEAK, sTNFR1, sCD163, MMP2 and pentraxin III, were detected in the CSF of MS patients with higher levels of GM damage at diagnosis. INTERPRETATION: A common pattern of intrathecal (meninges and CSF) inflammatory profile strongly correlates with increased cortical pathology, both at time of the diagnosis and of death. These results suggest a role for detailed CSF analysis combined with MRI, as a prognostic marker for more aggressive MS. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Screening and diagnostic breast MRI: how do they impact surgical treatment? Insights from the MIPA study

Objectives: To report mastectomy and reoperation rates in women who had breast MRI for screening (S-MRI subgroup) or diagnostic (D-MRI subgroup) purposes, using multivariable analysis for investigating the role of MRI referral/nonreferral and other covariates in driving surgical outcomes. Methods: The MIPA observational study enrolled women aged 18–80 years with newly diagnosed breast cancer destined to have surgery as the primary treatment, in 27 centres worldwide. Mastectomy and reoperation rates were compared using non-parametric tests and multivariable analysis. Results: A total of 5828 patients entered analysis, 2763 (47.4%) did not undergo MRI (noMRI subgroup) and 3065 underwent MRI (52.6%); of the latter, 2441/3065 (79.7%) underwent MRI with preoperative intent (P-MRI subgroup), 510/3065 (16.6%) D-MRI, and 114/3065 S-MRI (3.7%). The reoperation rate was 10.5% for S-MRI, 8.2% for D-MRI, and 8.5% for P-MRI, while it was 11.7% for noMRI (p ≤ 0.023 for comparisons with D-MRI and P-MRI). The overall mastectomy rate (first-line mastectomy plus conversions from conserving surgery to mastectomy) was 39.5% for S-MRI, 36.2% for P-MRI, 24.1% for D-MRI, and 18.0% for noMRI. At multivariable analysis, using noMRI as reference, the odds ratios for overall mastectomy were 2.4 (p < 0.001) for S-MRI, 1.0 (p = 0.957) for D-MRI, and 1.9 (p < 0.001) for P-MRI. Conclusions: Patients from the D-MRI subgroup had the lowest overall mastectomy rate (24.1%) among MRI subgroups and the lowest reoperation rate (8.2%) together with P-MRI (8.5%). This analysis offers an insight into how the initial indication for MRI affects the subsequent surgical treatment of breast cancer. Key Points: • Of 3065 breast MRI examinations, 79.7% were performed with preoperative intent (P-MRI), 16.6% were diagnostic (D-MRI), and 3.7% were screening (S-MRI) examinations. • The D-MRI subgroup had the lowest mastectomy rate (24.1%) among MRI subgroups and the lowest reoperation rate (8.2%) together with P-MRI (8.5%). • The S-MRI subgroup had the highest mastectomy rate (39.5%) which aligns with higher-than-average risk in this subgroup, with a reoperation rate (10.5%) not significantly different to that of all other subgroups

Screening and diagnostic breast MRI:how do they impact surgical treatment? Insights from the MIPA study

Objectives: To report mastectomy and reoperation rates in women who had breast MRI for screening (S-MRI subgroup) or diagnostic (D-MRI subgroup) purposes, using multivariable analysis for investigating the role of MRI referral/nonreferral and other covariates in driving surgical outcomes. Methods: The MIPA observational study enrolled women aged 18-80 years with newly diagnosed breast cancer destined to have surgery as the primary treatment, in 27 centres worldwide. Mastectomy and reoperation rates were compared using non-parametric tests and multivariable analysis. Results: A total of 5828 patients entered analysis, 2763 (47.4%) did not undergo MRI (noMRI subgroup) and 3065 underwent MRI (52.6%); of the latter, 2441/3065 (79.7%) underwent MRI with preoperative intent (P-MRI subgroup), 510/3065 (16.6%) D-MRI, and 114/3065 S-MRI (3.7%). The reoperation rate was 10.5% for S-MRI, 8.2% for D-MRI, and 8.5% for P-MRI, while it was 11.7% for noMRI (p&nbsp;≤&nbsp;0.023 for comparisons with D-MRI and P-MRI). The overall mastectomy rate (first-line mastectomy plus conversions from conserving surgery to mastectomy) was 39.5% for S-MRI, 36.2% for P-MRI, 24.1% for D-MRI, and 18.0% for noMRI. At multivariable analysis, using noMRI as reference, the odds ratios for overall mastectomy were 2.4 (p&nbsp;&lt;&nbsp;0.001) for S-MRI, 1.0 (p&nbsp;=&nbsp;0.957) for D-MRI, and 1.9 (p&nbsp;&lt;&nbsp;0.001) for P-MRI. Conclusions: Patients from the D-MRI subgroup had the lowest overall mastectomy rate (24.1%) among MRI subgroups and the lowest reoperation rate (8.2%) together with P-MRI (8.5%). This analysis offers an insight into how the initial indication for MRI affects the subsequent surgical treatment of breast cancer. Key points: • Of 3065 breast MRI examinations, 79.7% were performed with preoperative intent (P-MRI), 16.6% were diagnostic (D-MRI), and 3.7% were screening (S-MRI) examinations. • The D-MRI subgroup had the lowest mastectomy rate (24.1%) among MRI subgroups and the lowest reoperation rate (8.2%) together with P-MRI (8.5%). • The S-MRI subgroup had the highest mastectomy rate (39.5%) which aligns with higher-than-average risk in this subgroup, with a reoperation rate (10.5%) not significantly different to that of all other subgroups

Magnetic resonance imaging before breast cancer surgery: results of an observational multicenter international prospective analysis (MIPA).

Funder: Bayer AGFunder: Università degli Studi di MilanoOBJECTIVES: Preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can inform surgical planning but might cause overtreatment by increasing the mastectomy rate. The Multicenter International Prospective Analysis (MIPA) study investigated this controversial issue. METHODS: This observational study enrolled women aged 18-80 years with biopsy-proven breast cancer, who underwent MRI in addition to conventional imaging (mammography and/or breast ultrasonography) or conventional imaging alone before surgery as routine practice at 27 centers. Exclusion criteria included planned neoadjuvant therapy, pregnancy, personal history of any cancer, and distant metastases. RESULTS: Of 5896 analyzed patients, 2763 (46.9%) had conventional imaging only (noMRI group), and 3133 (53.1%) underwent MRI that was performed for diagnosis, screening, or unknown purposes in 692/3133 women (22.1%), with preoperative intent in 2441/3133 women (77.9%, MRI group). Patients in the MRI group were younger, had denser breasts, more cancers ≥ 20 mm, and a higher rate of invasive lobular histology than patients who underwent conventional imaging alone (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). Mastectomy was planned based on conventional imaging in 22.4% (MRI group) versus 14.4% (noMRI group) (p < 0.001). The additional planned mastectomy rate in the MRI group was 11.3%. The overall performed first- plus second-line mastectomy rate was 36.3% (MRI group) versus 18.0% (noMRI group) (p < 0.001). In women receiving conserving surgery, MRI group had a significantly lower reoperation rate (8.5% versus 11.7%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians requested breast MRI for women with a higher a priori probability of receiving mastectomy. MRI was associated with 11.3% more mastectomies, and with 3.2% fewer reoperations in the breast conservation subgroup. KEY POINTS: • In 19% of patients of the MIPA study, breast MRI was performed for screening or diagnostic purposes. • The current patient selection to preoperative breast MRI implies an 11% increase in mastectomies, counterbalanced by a 3% reduction of the reoperation rate. • Data from the MIPA study can support discussion in tumor boards when preoperative MRI is under consideration and should be shared with patients to achieve informed decision-making