B3 Breast Lesions: Positive Predictive Value and Follow-Up on a Large Single-Institution Series.

INTRODUCTION: Lesions of uncertain malignant potential (B3) represent 10% of core needle biopsies (CNBs) or vacuum-assisted breast biopsies (VABBs). Traditionally, B3 lesions are operated on. This study investigated the association between B3 subtypes and malignancy to determine the best management. METHODS: Pre- and postoperative histological reports from 226 patients, who had undergone excisional surgery for B3 lesions, following CNB or VABB, were retrospectively analyzed. The correlation between the CNB/VABB diagnosis and the final pathology was investigated, along with the correlation between malignancy upgrade and the type of mammographic lesion. The positive predictive value (PPV) of malignancy of B3 lesions was calculated by simple logistic regression. Patients without cancer diagnosis underwent a 7-y follow-up. RESULTS: Pathology showed 171 (75.6%) benign and 55 (24.3%) malignant lesions. The PPV was 24.3% (P = 0.043), including 31 (13.7%) ductal carcinomas in situ and 24 (10.6%) invasive carcinomas. The most frequently upgraded lesions were atypical ductal hyperplasia, 34.2% (P = 0.004), followed by lobular intraepithelial neoplasia, 27.5% (P = 0.025). The median diameter of mammographic lesions was 1.5 [0.9-2.5] cm, while for surgical specimens, it was 5 [4-7] cm (P < 0.0001). Mammographic findings and histology showed a significant correlation (P = 0.038). After a 7-y follow-up, 15 (8.9%) patients developed carcinoma, and 7 patients (4%) developed a new B3 lesion. CONCLUSIONS: We can conclude that atypical ductal hyperplasia and lobular intraepithelial neoplasia still require surgery for a significant PPV. Other types that lacked significance or confidence intervals were too wide to draw any conclusion.

The professional quality criteria of Italian breast screening radiologists: results from a national survey comparing the programmes started in 2000-2012 versus the ones started in 1990-1999.

INTRODUCTION: In Italy, due to increasing healthcare budget and staff shortages, the recently created regional mammography screening programmes were established under worse radiology practice quality criteria than the previously created programmes. METHODS: Using available data from a national questionnaire survey conducted at the end of 2013 and involving 222 responder radiologists, we compared the main professional quality standards of radiologists working in the screening programmes established during the period 2000-2012 with those working in the screening programmes created from 1990 to 1999. RESULTS: The former reported more years of clinical experience in breast imaging and a greater clinical mammogram reading volume than the latter. Conversely, they dedicated less working time to breast imaging, were less likely to participate in the diagnostic assessment of screen-detected lesions, to work in large-staffed screening centres, and to have a screening and a total mammogram reading volume (SMRV and TMRV) ≥ 5000 per year. CONCLUSIONS: The level of most professional quality criteria of Italian mammography screening radiologists has decreased over time. As SMRV and TMRV are important predictors of diagnostic accuracy, we can expect a lower interpretation performance of radiologists working in the recently created screening programmes.

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): recommendations from the Italian College of Breast Radiologists (ICBR) by the Italian Society of Medical Radiology (SIRM) and the Italian Group for Mammography Screening (GISMa).

This position paper, issued by ICBR/SIRM and GISMa, summarizes the evidence on DBT and provides recommendations for its use. In the screening setting, DBT in adjunct to digital mammography (DM) increased detection rate by 0.5-2.7‰ and decreased false positives by 0.8-3.6% compared to DM alone in observational and double-testing experimental studies. The reduction in recall rate could be less prominent in those screening programs which already have low recall rates with DM. The increase in radiation exposure associated with DM/DBT protocols has been solved by the introduction of synthetic mammograms (sDM) reconstructed from DBT datasets. Thus, whenever possible, sDM/DBT should be preferred to DM/DBT. However, before introducing DBT as a routine screening tool for average-risk women, we should wait for the results of randomized controlled trials and for a statistically significant and clinically relevant reduction in the interval cancer rate, hopefully associated with a reduction in the advanced cancer rate. Otherwise, a potential for overdiagnosis and overtreatment cannot be excluded. Studies exploring this issue are ongoing. Screening of women at intermediate risk should follow the same recommendations, with particular protocols for women with previous BC history. In high-risk women, if mammography is performed as an adjunct to MRI or in the case of MRI contraindications, sDM/DBT protocols are suggested. Evidence exists in favor of DBT usage in women with clinical symptoms/signs and asymptomatic women with screen-detected findings recalled for work-up. The possibility to perform needle biopsy or localization under DBT guidance should be offered when DBT-only findings need characterization or surgery.

Recommendations for breast imaging follow-up of women with a previous history of breast cancer: position paper from the Italian Group for Mammography Screening (GISMa) and the Italian College of Breast Radiologists (ICBR) by SIRM.

Women who were previously treated for breast cancer (BC) are an important particular subgroup of women at intermediate BC risk. Their breast follow-up should be planned taking in consideration a 1.0-1.5 % annual rate of loco-regional recurrences and new ipsilateral or contralateral BCs during 15-20 years, and be based on a regional/district invitation system. This activity should be carried out by a Department of Radiology integrating screening and diagnostics in the context of a Breast Unit. We recommend the adoption of protocols dedicated to women previously treated for BC, with a clear definition of responsibilities, methods for invitation, site(s) of visits, methods for clinical and radiological evaluation, follow-up duration, role and function of family doctors and specialists. These women will be invited to get a mammogram in dedicated sessions starting from the year after the end of treatment. The planned follow-up duration will be at least 10 years and will be defined on the basis of patient's age and preferences, taking into consideration organizational matters. Special agreements can be defined in the case of women who have their follow-up planned at other qualified centers. Dedicated screening sessions should include: evaluation of familial/personal history (if previously not done) for identifying high-risk conditions which could indicate a different screening strategy; immediate evaluation of mammograms by one or, when possible, two breast radiologists with possible addition of supplemental mammographic views, digital breast tomosynthesis, clinical breast examination, breast ultrasound; and prompt planning of possible further workup. Results of these screening sessions should be set apart from those of general female population screening and presented in dedicated reports. The following research issues are suggested: further risk stratification and effectiveness of follow-up protocols differentiated also for BC pathologic subtype and molecular classification, and evaluation of different models of survivorship care, also in terms of cost-effectiveness.

Factors associated with breast screening radiologists' annual mammogram reading volume in Italy.

PURPOSE: Screening mammogram reading volume (SMRV) and total (screening and clinical) mammogram reading volume (TMRV) per year are strongly associated with the radiologist's diagnostic performance in breast cancer screening. The current article reports the prevalence and correlates of a SMRV and a TMRV ≥5000 among Italian breast screening radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire survey was carried out in 2013-2014 by the Italian Group for Mammography Screening (GISMa). The questionnaire included items of information for radiologist's experience-related characteristics and for facility-level factors supposedly associated with SMRV and TMRV. Multivariate analysis was performed using backward stepwise multiple logistic regression models. RESULTS: Data for 235 radiologists from 51 local screening programmes were received. Of the 222 radiologists who were eligible, 133 (59.9 %) reported a SMRV ≥5000 and 163 (73.4 %) a TMRV ≥5000. Multivariate factors positively associated with both characteristics included: the number of years of experience reading mammograms; the percentage of total working time dedicated to breast imaging and breast care; the participation in diagnostic assessment; and the availability of digital tomosynthesis at facility. Full-time dedication to breast imaging and breast care was associated with the highest odds ratio for a SMRV and a TMRV ≥5000, i.e. 11.80 and 46.74, respectively, versus a percentage of time ≤50 %. An early (<2000) year of implementation of the screening programme and the availability of vacuum-assisted biopsy at facility were associated with a SMRV and, respectively, a TMRV ≥5000. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing the proportion of radiologists with full-time dedication to breast imaging and breast care qualified as the most effective approach to improve SMRV and TMRV.

Mammographic density: Comparison of visual assessment with fully automatic calculation on a multivendor dataset.

OBJECTIVES: To compare breast density (BD) assessment provided by an automated BD evaluator (ABDE) with that provided by a panel of experienced breast radiologists, on a multivendor dataset. METHODS: Twenty-one radiologists assessed 613 screening/diagnostic digital mammograms from nine centers and six different vendors, using the BI-RADS a, b, c, and d density classification. The same mammograms were also evaluated by an ABDE providing the ratio between fibroglandular and total breast area on a continuous scale and, automatically, the BI-RADS score. A panel majority report (PMR) was used as reference standard. Agreement (κ) and accuracy (proportion of cases correctly classified) were calculated for binary (BI-RADS a-b versus c-d) and 4-class classification. RESULTS: While the agreement of individual radiologists with the PMR ranged from κ = 0.483 to κ = 0.885, the ABDE correctly classified 563/613 mammograms (92 %). A substantial agreement for binary classification was found for individual reader pairs (κ = 0.620, standard deviation [SD] = 0.140), individual versus PMR (κ = 0.736, SD = 0.117), and individual versus ABDE (κ = 0.674, SD = 0.095). Agreement between ABDE and PMR was almost perfect (κ = 0.831). CONCLUSIONS: The ABDE showed an almost perfect agreement with a 21-radiologist panel in binary BD classification on a multivendor dataset, earning a chance as a reproducible alternative to visual evaluation. KEY POINTS: Individual BD assessment differs from PMR with κ as low as 0.483. An ABDE correctly classified 92 % of mammograms with almost perfect agreement (κ = 0.831). An ABDE can be a valid alternative to subjective BD assessment.

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.

A PALB2 germline mutation associated with hereditary breast cancer in Italy.

Recently, it has been demonstrated that monoallelic PALB2 mutations predispose to familial breast cancer. We investigated the contribution of PALB2 mutations in a set of 132 Italian BRCA1/BRCA2-negative breast cancer families; one truncating PALB2 mutation, c.2257C>T, resulting in p.Arg753X, was identified in a woman and her daughter, with breast cancer diagnosed at 60 and 31 years old, respectively. This study supports the recent observation that PALB2 mutation are present, although infrequently, in familial BRCA1/BRCA2-negative breast cancer cases; moreover, it sustains latest evidences that some PALB2 mutations are associated with a substantially increased risk of breast cancer.

Founder mutations account for the majority of BRCA1-attributable hereditary breast/ovarian cancer cases in a population from Tuscany, Central Italy.

BACKGROUND: Germline mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 tumour-suppressor genes predispose to early-onset breast and ovarian cancer. Although both genes display a highly heterogeneous mutation spectrum, a number of alterations recur in some populations. Only a limited number of founder mutations have been identified in the Italian population so far. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the spectrum of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations in a set of families originary from the Central-Eastern part of Tuscany and to ascertain the presence of founder effects. We also wanted to approximate the age of the most frequent BRCA1 founder mutation. RESULTS: Overall, four distinct BRCA1 mutations accounted for a large fraction (72.7%) of BRCA1-attributable hereditary breast/ovarian cancer in families originary from this area. We identified common haplotypes for two newly recognised recurrent BRCA1 mutations, c.3228_3229delAG and c.3285delA. The c.3228_3229delAG mutation was estimated to have originated about 129 generations ago. Interestingly, male breast cancer cases were present in 3 out of 11 families with the c.3228_3229delAG mutation. CONCLUSIONS: The observation that a high proportion of families with BRCA1 alterations from Central-Eastern Tuscany harbours a limited number of founder mutations can have significant impact on clinical management of at risk subjects from this area. In addition, the identification of a large set of families carrying an identical mutation that predisposes to breast and ovarian cancer provides unique opportunities to study the effect of other genetic and environmental factors on penetrance and disease phenotype.