Audit system on Quality of breast cancer diagnosis and Treatment (QT): Results of quality indicators on screen-detected lesions in Italy, 2011-2012

This annual survey, conducted by the Italian group for mammography screening (GISMa), collects individual data on diagnosis and treatment of about 50% of screen-detected, operated lesions in Italy. The 2011-2012 results show good overall quality and an improving trend over time. A number of critical issues have been identified, including waiting times (which have had a worsening trend over the years) and compliance with the recommendation of not performing frozen section examination on small lesions. Pre-operative diagnosis improved constantly over time, but there is still a large variation between Regions and programmes. For almost 90% of screen-detected invasive cancers a sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy was performed on the axilla, avoiding a large number of potentially harmful dissections. On the other hand, potential overuse of SLN dissection for ductal carcinoma in situ, although apparently starting to decline, deserves further investigation. The detailed results have been distributed, among other ways by means of a web-based 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. The problem of waiting times should be assigned priority. 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

A simple method to estimate the episode and programme sensitivity of breast cancer screening programmes.

BACKGROUND: The estimation of breast cancer screening sensitivity is a major aim in the quality assessment of screening programmes. The proportional incidence method for the estimation of the sensitivity of breast cancer screening programmes is rarely used to estimate the underlying incidence rates. METHODS: We present a method to estimate episode and programme sensitivity of screening programmes, based solely on cancers detected within screening cycles (excluding breast cancer cases at prevalent screening round) and on the number of incident cases in the total target population (steady state). The assumptions, strengths and limitations of the method are discussed. An example of calculation of episode and programme sensitivities is given, on the basis of the data from the IMPACT study, a large observational study of breast cancer screening programmes in Italy. RESULTS: The programme sensitivity from the fifth year of screening onwards ranged between 41% and 48% of the total number of cases in the target population. At steady state episode sensitivity was 0.70, with a trend across age groups, with lowest values in women aged 50-54 years (0.52) and highest in those 65-69 (0.77). CONCLUSIONS: The method is a very serviceable tool for estimating sensitivity in service screening programmes, and the results are comparable with those of other methods of estimation

Comparing accuracy of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography or synthetic 2D mammography in breast cancer screening: baseline results of the MAITA RCT consortium.

AIM: The analyses here reported aim to compare the screening performance of digital tomosynthesis (DBT) versus mammography (DM). METHODS: MAITA is a consortium of four Italian trials, REtomo, Proteus, Impeto, and MAITA trial. The trials adopted a two-arm randomised design comparing DBT plus DM (REtomo and Proteus) or synthetic-2D (Impeto and MAITA trial) versus DM; multiple vendors were included. Women aged 45 to 69 years were individually randomised to one round of DBT or DM. FINDINGS: From March 2014 to February 2022, 50,856 and 63,295 women were randomised to the DBT and DM arm, respectively. In the DBT arm, 6656 women were screened with DBT plus synthetic-2D. Recall was higher in the DBT arm (5·84% versus 4·96%), with differences between centres. With DBT, 0·8/1000 (95% CI 0·3 to 1·3) more women received surgical treatment for a benign lesion. The detection rate was 51% higher with DBT, ie. 2·6/1000 (95% CI 1·7 to 3·6) more cancers detected, with a similar relative increase for invasive cancers and ductal carcinoma in situ. The results were similar below and over the age of 50, at first and subsequent rounds, and with DBT plus DM and DBT plus synthetic-2D. No learning curve was appreciable. Detection of cancers >= 20 mm, with 2 or more positive lymph nodes, grade III, HER2-positive, or triple-negative was similar in the two arms. INTERPRETATION: Results from MAITA confirm that DBT is superior to DM for the detection of cancers, with a possible increase in recall rate. DBT performance in screening should be assessed locally while waiting for long-term follow-up results on the impact of advanced cancer incidence

Epidemiological changes in breast tumours in Italy: the IMPACT study on mammographic screening programmes.

No abstract availabl