A randomised controlled trial of digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography as primary screening tests: Screening results over subsequent episodes of the Proteus Donna study.

Proteus Donna is a randomised controlled trial aimed at prospectively evaluating screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), including interval cancer detection (ICD) and cancer detection (CD) in the analysis as a cumulative measure over subsequent screening episodes. Consenting women aged 46 to 68 attending the regional Breast Screening Service were randomly assigned to conventional digital mammography (DM, control arm) or DBT in addition to DM (DBT, study arm). At the subsequent round all participants underwent DM. Thirty-six months follow-up allowed for the identification of cancers detected in the subsequent screening and interscreening interval. Relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were computed. Cumulative CD and Nelson-Aalen incidence were analysed over the follow-up period. Between 31 December 2014 and 31 December 2017, 43 022 women were randomised to DM and 30 844 to DBT. At baseline, CD was significantly higher (RR: 1.44, 95% CI: 1.21-1.71) in the study arm. ICD did not differ significantly between the two arms (RR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.62-1.35). At subsequent screening with DM, the CD was lower (nearly significant) in the study arm (RR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.65-1.06). Over the follow-up period, the cumulative CD (comprehensive of ICD) was slightly higher in the study arm (RR: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.01-1.31). The Nelson-Aalen cumulative incidence over time remained significantly higher in the study arm for approximately 24 months. Benign lesions detection was higher in the study arm at baseline and lower at subsequent tests. Outcomes are consistent with a lead time gain of DBT compared to DM, with an increase in false positives and moderate overdiagnosis.

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

AIM OF THE STUDY: 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. METHODS: Patients' data were provided by the Senonetwork data warehouse Senonet. In order to examine changes in the surgical and oncological management of BC patients during different phases of COVID-19 pandemic, we took advantage of a selection quality indicators (QIs). We performed the analyses in two time-frames, from July to September (Jul-Sep) (2019 versus 2020) and from October to December (Oct-Dec) (2019 versus 2020). RESULTS: Our analysis did not show any statistically significant difference in terms of diagnosis, surgical, oncological and radiation therapy procedures between the two trimesters 2019 and 2020. Nevertheless, we observed statistically significant differences, favoring 2020, when analyzing time-to surgery and time-to radiotherapy. On the other hand, we observed a significant reduction of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and we did not recollect any data on a major use of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In Italian Breast Centers, partners of Senonetwork, we could not observe any treatment delay or change in standard clinical practice for BC care during the 2020 pandemic year, compared to 2019 pre-pandemic year. This finding is in contrast with the globally reported decrease in the performance of the Italian Breast Centers due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and has to be linked to the sharp selection of Senonetwork Breast Centers.

Updated recommendations regarding the management of older patients with breast cancer: a joint paper from the European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists (EUSOMA) and the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG).

Breast cancer is increasingly prevalent in older adults and is a substantial part of routine oncology practice. However, management of breast cancer in this population is challenging because the disease is highly heterogeneous and there is insufficient evidence specific to older adults. Decision making should not be driven by age alone but should involve geriatric assessments plus careful consideration of life expectancy, competing risks of mortality, and patient preferences. A multidisciplinary taskforce, including members of the European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists and International Society of Geriatric Oncology, gathered to expand and update the previous 2012 evidence-based recommendations for the management of breast cancer in older individuals with the endorsement of the European Cancer Organisation. These guidelines were expanded to include chemotherapy toxicity prediction calculators, cultural and social considerations, surveillance imaging, genetic screening, gene expression profiles, neoadjuvant systemic treatment options, bone-modifying drugs, targeted therapies, and supportive care. Recommendations on geriatric assessment, ductal carcinoma in situ, screening, primary endocrine therapy, surgery, radiotherapy, adjuvant systemic therapy, and secondary breast cancer were updated.

Early assessment of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer screening services: The International Cancer Screening Network COVID-19 survey.

Screening can decrease the burden of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers. The COVID-19 pandemic led many countries to suspend cancer screening services as part of their response to the pandemic. The International Cancer Screening Network (ICSN) carried out an online survey to assess the effects of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer screening. A 33-item survey was distributed to 834 email addresses to gather information about settings and assess decision-making processes that led to cancer screening suspension. Information about communication, impact on resources, and patient follow-up was collected. Quantitative data was analyzed as frequencies overall and by setting, while a comment section under each survey item captured nuanced details. Responses were recategorized into 66 settings, representing 35 countries. Most settings suspended cancer screening services (n = 60, 90.9%) in March 2020 (n = 45, 68.2%), guided by a government decision (n = 51, 77.3%). Few settings made the decision whether to suspend services based on a preparedness plan (n = 17, 25.8%). In most settings, professionals were reassigned (n = 41, 62.1%) and infrastructure repurposed (n = 35, 53.0%). The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic has had profound effects on cancer screening worldwide, including the suspension of services in almost all settings. Most settings were unprepared to deal with the scale of the pandemic but demonstrated flexibility in the response. These results contribute to inform, through experiences and lessons learned, the next steps for the global cancer screening community to further evaluate the impact of COVID-19 and prepare for future disruptions.

Performance indicators in breast cancer screening in the European Union: A comparison across countries of screen positivity and detection rates.

Comparable performance indicators for breast cancer screening in the European Union (EU) have not been previously reported. We estimated adjusted breast cancer screening positivity rate (PR) and detection rates (DR) to investigate variation across EU countries. For the age 50-69 years, the adjusted EU-pooled PR for initial screening was 8.9% (cross-programme variation range 3.2-19.5%) while DR of invasive cancers was 5.3/1,000 (range 3.8-7.4/1,000) and DR of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) was 1.3/1,000 (range 0.7-2.7/1,000). For subsequent screening, the adjusted EU-pooled PR was 3.6% (range 1.4-8.4%), the DR was 4.0/1,000 (range 2.2-5.8/1,000) and 0.8/1,000 (range 0.5-1.3/1,000) for invasive and DCIS, respectively. Adjusted performance indicators showed remarkable heterogeneity, likely due to different background breast cancer risk and awareness between target populations, and also different screening protocols and organisation. Periodic reporting of the screening indicators permits comparison and evaluation of the screening activities between and within countries aiming to improve the quality and the outcomes of screening programmes. Cancer Screening Registries would be a milestone in this direction and EU Screening Reports provide a fundamental contribution to building them.

Key issues that need to be considered while revising the current annex of the European Council Recommendation (2003) on cancer screening.

The 2003 European Council recommendation urging the Member States to introduce or scale up breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening through an organized population-based approach has had a remarkable impact. We argue that the recommendation needs to be updated for at least two sets of reasons. First, some of the current clinical guidelines include new tests or protocols that were not available at the time of the Council document. Some have already been adopted by organized screening programs, such as newly defined age ranges for mammography screening, Human Papillomavirus (HPV)-based cervical cancer screening, fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and sigmoidoscopy for colorectal cancer screening. Second, the outcomes of randomized trials evaluating screening for lung and prostate cancer have been published recently and the balance between harms and benefits needs to be pragmatically assessed. In the European Union, research collaboration and networking to exchange and develop best practices should be regularly supported by the European Commission. Integration between primary and secondary preventive strategies through comprehensive approaches is necessary not only to maximize the reduction in cancer burden but also to control the rising trend of other noncommunicable diseases sharing the same risk factors.

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

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: This systematic approach led to the identification of 13 BCSP candidate performance indicators to be further evaluated for their association with BC mortality.

Performance of colorectal cancer screening in the European Union Member States: data from the second European screening report.

OBJECTIVE: To present comparative data about the performance of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes in the European Union Member States (EU MSs). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. We analysed key performance indicators-participation rate, positivity rate (PR), detection rate (DR) and positive predictive value for adenomas and CRC-based on the aggregated quantitative data collected for the second EU screening report. We derived crude and pooled (through a random effects model) estimates to describe and compare trends across different MSs/regions and screening protocols. RESULTS: Participation rate was higher in countries adopting faecal immunochemical test (FIT) (range: 22.8%-71.3%) than in those using guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) (range 4.5%-66.6%), and it showed a positive correlation (ρ=0.842, p<0.001) with participation in breast cancer screening in the same areas. Screening performance showed a large variability. Compliance with referral for colonoscopy (total colonoscopy (TC)) assessment ranged between 64% and 92%; TC completion rate ranged between 92% and 99%. PR and DR of advanced adenomas and CRC were higher in FIT, as compared with gFOBT programmes, and independent of the protocol among men, older subjects and those performing their first screening. CONCLUSIONS: The variability in the results of quality indicators across population-based screening programmes highlights the importance of continuous monitoring, as well as the need to promote quality improvement efforts, as recommended in the EU guidelines. The implementation of monitoring systems, ensuring availability of data for the entire process, together with initiatives aimed to enhance reproducibility of histology and quality of endoscopy, represent a priority in screening programmes management.

Low-grade screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ progresses more slowly than high-grade lesions: evidence from an international multi-centre study.

PURPOSE: Nuclear grade is an important indicator of the biological behaviour of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). De-escalation of treatment has been suggested for low-grade DCIS. Our aim is to estimate the relative rate of progression of DCIS by nuclear grade by analysing the distribution of nuclear grade by detection at initial or subsequent screening. METHODS: We asked International Cancer Screening Network sites to complete, based on their screening and clinical databases, an aggregated data file on DCIS detection, diagnosis and treatment. RESULTS: Eleven screening programs reported 5068 screen-detected pure DCIS in nearly 7 million screening tests in women 50-69 years of age. For all programs combined, low-grade DCIS were 20.1% (range 11.4-31.8%) of graded DCIS, intermediate grade 31.0% and high grade 48.9%. Detection rates decreased more steeply from initial to subsequent screening in low compared to high-grade DCIS: the ratios of subsequent to initial detection rates were 0.39 for low grade, 0.51 for intermediate grade, and 0.75 for high grade (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the duration of the preclinical detectable phase is longer for low than for high-grade DCIS. The findings from this large multi-centre, international study emphasize that the management of low-grade DCIS should be carefully scrutinized in order to minimize overtreatment of screen-detected slow-growing or indolent lesions. The high variation by site in the proportion of low grade suggests that further pathology standardization and training would be beneficial.

Status of implementation and organization of cancer screening in The European Union Member States-Summary results from the second European screening report.

The second report on the implementation status of cancer screening in European Union (EU) was published in 2017. The report described the implementation status, protocols and organization (updated till 2016) and invitation coverage (for index year 2013) of breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening in the EU. Experts in screening programme monitoring (N = 80) from the EU Member States having access to requisite information in their respective countries provided data on breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening through online questionnaires. Data was collected for screening performed in the framework of publicly mandated programmes only. Filled in questionnaires were received from 26 Member States for all three sites and from one Member State for breast cancer only. Substantial improvement in screening implementation using population-based approach was documented. Among the age-eligible women, 94.7% were residents of Member States implementing or planning population-based breast cancer screening in 2016, compared to 91.6% in 2007. The corresponding figures for cervical cancer screening were 72.3 and 51.3% in 2016 and 2007, respectively. Most significant improvement was documented for colorectal cancer screening with roll-out ongoing or completed in 17 Member States in 2016, compared to only five in 2007. So the access to population-based screening increased to 72.4% of the age-eligible populations in 2016 as opposed to only 42.6% in 2007. The invitation coverage was highly variable, ranging from 0.2-111% for breast cancer, 7.6-105% for cervical cancer and 1.8-127% for colorectal cancer in the target populations. In spite of the considerable progress, much work remains to be done to achieve optimal effectiveness. Continued monitoring, regular feedbacks and periodic reporting are needed to ensure the desired impacts of the programmes.

Data managers: A survey of the European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists in certified multi-disciplinary breast centers.

The European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists (EUSOMA) requires that the breast centers' core team includes a trained person responsible for data collection and analysis. We addressed a questionnaire to the data managers of the EUSOMA breast centers network in order to acquire information with regard to their education, training, role, activity, recognition, and satisfaction. Breast centers' data managers are highly educated individuals with a variety of backgrounds carrying out, more frequently part-time and as temporary employees, a job for which they received little specific training. These findings support the importance of defining a core curriculum and a training program.

Epidemiologic evidence of slow growing, nonprogressive or regressive breast cancer: A systematic review.

The general aim of this systematic review is to mitigate breast cancer (BC) overdiagnosis and overtreatment. The specific aim is to summarize available data on the occurrence and features of indolent invasive or in situ (DCIS) BC, and precisely survival of untreated cases, prevalence of occult cancers found in autopsies, frequency of regressive BC. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were systematically searched up to 3/31/2014. Eligibility criteria were: cohort studies, case-control studies, uncontrolled case series assessing survival in women with a diagnosis of BC who did not receive treatment compared to treated women; case series of autopsies estimating the prevalence of undiagnosed BC; cohort studies, case-control studies, uncontrolled case series, case reports assessing the occurrence of spontaneous regression of BC in women with a confirmed histology diagnosis. Untreated BC: 8 cohort studies and 12 case series (3593 BC) were included. In three controlled cohort studies (diagnoses 1978-2006), the 5-years overall survival was 19-43%. Occult BC: 8 case series (2279 autopsies) were included. The prevalence of invasive BC undiagnosed during lifetime range was 0-1.5%, while for DCIS the range was 0.2-14.7%. Spontaneous regression: 2 cohort studies, 3 case reports, 1 case series included. In the cohort studies the relative risk of regression for screen detected compared with nonscreened BC was estimated as 1.2 and 1.1. It seems plausible that around 10% of invasive BC are not symptomatic during life, and that one fith of BC patients if untreated would be alive after 5 years. Around 1 of 10 screen-detected BC may regress according two studies.

[Introduction of a centralised system (Service) for collecting clinical data in cancer screening programmes in Piedmont (Northern Italy): a pre-post assessment of a hub&spoke model]. / L'introduzione di un sistema centralizzato (Service) per la raccolta dei dati clinici negli screening oncologici in Piemonte: valutazione pre-post di un modello hub&spoke.

OBJECTIVES: evaluation of a centralised collection of clinical data (Service) within cancer screening programmes in Piedmont based on a hub&spoke model and its impact on process indicators. DESIGN: assessment of an organisational intervention, through a non-controlled pre-post design. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: organised screening programmes within the Piedmont Region, divided into 9 departments. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: clinical data (extracted from medical charts for mammography screening and from excision histology reports for cervical screening) obtained through the Service were quantified and their completeness was assessed. The Service impact on the detection rate (DR) was evaluated, comparing the DR pre- (2005-2008) and post-Service (2009- 2012) within breast screening; the DR was computed through histological diagnosis made during colposcopy (pre-Service method) or through the worst diagnosis between the latter and that reported from excision histology (post-Service method) within cervical screening (data available for department 1, year 2013). Some hints on human resources employed in pre- and post-Service periods were reported. RESULTS: within mammography screening, the Service obtained 53.1% of extra-department medical charts and 45.8% of extra-region ones; the percentage of missing diagnoses changed from 5.5% (pre- Service) to 3.7% (post-Service). The age standardised DR for malignant tumours in the post-Service period is 1.3 times the DR of the pre-Service period per 1,000 screening tests. Within cervical screening, 51.7% of histological reports was recorded. Crude DR for high-grade lesions changed from 3.9 (pre-Service) to 4.7 (post-Service) per 1,000 screened women. The system centralisation did not imply an increase in the dedicated personnel. CONCLUSION: the Service is an operational core which coordinates the collection of clinical data, impacting on process indicators without an increase in human resources at departmental level.

Problems, solutions, and perspectives in the evaluation of interval cancers in Italian mammography screening programmes: a position paper from the Italian group for mammography screening (GISMa).

In this position paper, a self-convened team of experts from the Italian Group for Mammography Screening (Gruppo italiano screening mammografico, GISMa) pointed out the problems that increasingly hamper the feasibility and validity of the estimate of the proportional incidence of interval breast cancer (IBC) in Italy, suggested potential solutions and an agenda for research, and proposed that the question of the sensitivity of mammography be viewed in a larger perspective, with a greater attention to radiological review activities and breast radiology quality assurance programmes. The main problems are as follows: the coverage of cancer registration is incomplete; the robustness of using the pre-screening incidence rates as underlying rates decreases with time since the start of screening; the intermediate mammograms performed for early detection purposes may cause an overrepresentation of IBCs; the classification of many borderline screening histories is prone to subjectivity; and, finally, the composition of cohorts of women with negative screening results is uncertain, because several mammography reports are neither clearly negative nor clearly positive, and because of the limitations and instability of the electronic mammography records. Several possibilities can be considered to cope with these issues: standard methods for using the hospital discharge records in the identification of IBCs should be established; for the calculation of regional estimates of the underlying incidence, a suitable mathematical model should be identified; the definition of IBC according to the 2008 GISMa guidelines needs to be updated, especially with respect to in situ cancers and to invasive cancers with borderline screening histories; a closer adherence to standard screening protocols, with a simplified patient management, would make it easier to objectively identify IBCs; alternative methods for estimating the sensitivity of mammography should be taken into consideration; and, finally, analysis could be restricted to the absolute incidence rate of IBC, which would make comparison of the risk between neighbouring populations possible. Epidemiologists must extend their attention to the prevention of the risk of IBC and the implementation of breast radiology quality assurance practices. Epidemiologists and radiologists can share common objectives: it is necessary to promote the idea that the availability of a registry-based series of IBCs is not a prerequisite for their radiological review; radiological review of breast cancers greater than 20mm in size detected at second and subsequent screens, that are potential substitutes for IBCs, needs radiological and epidemiological validation studies; the advent of digital mammography brings about the possibility to create libraries of mammograms accessible online, which enables the conduct of large studies of the diagnostic variability of radiologists; and, finally, epidemiologists and radiologists have the responsibility to monitor the effects that a loss of cumulative professional experience in screening centres, due to the imminent retirement of a substantial proportion of healthcare workforce, could cause on their performance.

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.

EUSOMA quality indicators for non-metastatic breast cancer: An update.

INTRODUCTION: Quality care in breast cancer is higher if patients are treated in a Breast Center with a dedicated and specialized multidisciplinary team. Quality control is an essential activity to ensure quality care, which has to be based on the monitoring of specific quality indicators. Eusoma has proceeded with the up-dating of the 2017 Quality indicators for non-metastatic breast cancer based on the new diagnostic, locoregional and systemic treatment modalities. METHODS: To proceed with the updating, EUSOMA setup a multidisciplinary working group of BC experts and patients' representatives. It is a comprehensive set of QIs for early breast cancer care, which are classified as mandatory, recommended, or observational. For the first time patient reported outcomes (PROMs) have been included. As used in the 2017 EUSOMA QIs, evidence levels were based on the short version of the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. RESULTS: This is a set of quality indicators representative for the different steps of the patient pathway in non-metastatic setting, which allow Breast Centres to monitor their performance with referring standards, i.e minimum standard and target. CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring these Quality Indicators, within the Eusoma datacentre will allow to have a state of the art picture at European Breast Centres level and the development of challenging research projects.

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.