RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Stage shift is widely considered a major determinant of the survival benefit conferred by breast cancer screening. However, factors and mechanisms underlying such a prognostic advantage need further clarification. We sought to compare the molecular characteristics of screen detected vs. symptomatic breast cancers and assess whether differences in tumour biology might translate into survival benefit. METHODS: In a clinical series of 448 women with operable breast cancer, the Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test were used to estimate the likelihood of cancer recurrence and death. The Cox proportional hazard model was used for the multivariate analyses including mode of detection, age at diagnosis, tumour size, and lymph node status. These same models were applied to subgroups defined by molecular subtypes. RESULTS: Screen detected breast cancers tended to show more favourable clinicopathological features and survival outcomes compared to symptomatic cancers. The luminal A subtype was more common in women with mammography detected tumours than in symptomatic patients (68.5 vs. 59.0%, p=0.04). Data analysis across categories of molecular subtypes revealed significantly longer disease free and overall survival for screen detected cancers with a luminal A subtype only (p=0.01 and 0.02, respectively). For women with a luminal A subtype, the independent prognostic role of mode of detection on recurrence was confirmed in Cox proportional hazard models (p=0.03). An independent role of modality of detection on survival was also suggested (p=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Molecular subtypes did not substantially explain the differences in survival outcomes between screened and symptomatic patients. However, our results suggest that molecular profiles might play a role in interpreting such differences at least partially.Further studies are warranted to reinterpret the efficacy of screening programmes in the light of tumour biology.
Assuntos
Neoplasias da Mama/mortalidade , Adulto , Idoso , Antígenos de Neoplasias/análise , Biomarcadores Tumorais/metabolismo , Neoplasias da Mama/diagnóstico , Neoplasias da Mama/metabolismo , Neoplasias da Mama/patologia , Ensaios de Seleção de Medicamentos Antitumorais , Feminino , Humanos , Programas de Rastreamento/métodos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Recidiva Local de Neoplasia , Estatísticas não Paramétricas , Análise de SobrevidaRESUMO
Objective: To evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on first and follow-up visits for cancer outpatients. Methods: This is a multicenter retrospective observational study involving three Comprehensive Cancer Care Centers (CCCCs): IFO, including IRE and ISG in Rome, AUSL-IRCCS of Reggio Emilia, and IRCCS Giovanni Paolo II in Bari) and one oncology department in a Community Hospital (Saint'Andrea Hospital, Rome). From 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2021, we evaluated the volume of outpatient consultations (first visits and follow-up), comparing them with the pre-pandemic year (2019). Results were analyzed by quarter according to the Rt (real-time indicator used to assess the evolution of the pandemic). IFO and IRCCS Giovanni Paolo II were "COVID-free" while AUSL-IRCCS RE was a "COVID-mixed" Institute. Depending on the Rt, Sain't Andrea Hospital experienced a "swinging" organizational pathway (COVID-free/ COVID-mixed). Results: Regarding the "first appointments", in 2020 the healthcare facilities operating in the North and Center of Italy showed a downward trend. In 2021, only AUSL-IRCCS RE showed an upward trend. Regarding the "follow-up", only AUSL IRCCS RE showed a slight up-trend in 2020. In 2021, IFO showed an increasing trend, while S. Andrea Hospital showed a negative plateau. Surprisingly, IRCCS Giovanni Paolo II in Bari showed an uptrend for both first appointment and follow-ups during pandemic and late pandemic except for the fourth quarter of 2021. Conclusions: During the first pandemic wave, no significant difference was observed amongst COVID-free and COVID-mixed Institutes and between CCCCs and a Community Hospital. In 2021 ("late pandemic year"), it has been more convenient to organize COVID-mixed pathway in the CCCCs rather than to keep the Institutions COVID-free. A swinging modality in the Community Hospital did not offer positive results in term of visit volumes. Our study about the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on visit volume in cancer outpatients may help health systems to optimize the post-pandemic use of resources and improve healthcare policies.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Neoplasias , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Pacientes Ambulatoriais , Pandemias , Política de Saúde , Hospitais Comunitários , Neoplasias/epidemiologiaRESUMO
The accreditation process is, on the one hand, a tool used to homogenize procedures, rendering comparable and standardized processes of care, and on the other, a methodology employed to develop a culture of quality improvement. Although not yet proven by evidence-based studies that health outcomes improve as a result of an accreditation to excellence, it is undeniable that better control of healthcare processes results in better quality and safety of diagnostic and therapeutic pathways. The Regina Elena National Cancer Institute underwent the accreditation process in accordance with the standards criteria set by the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes (OECI), and it has recently completed the process, acquiring its designation as a Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCC). This was an invaluable opportunity for the Regina Elena Institute to create a more cohesive environment, to widely establish a culture of quality, to implement an institutional information system, and to accelerate the process of patient involvement in strategic decisions. The steps of the process allowed us to evaluate the performance and the organization of the institute and put amendments in place designed to be adopted through 26 improvement actions. These actions regarded several aspects of the institute, including quality culture, information communication technology system, care, clinical trials unit, disease management team, nursing, and patient empowerment and involvement. Each area has a timeline. We chose to present the following 3 improvement actions: clinical trial center, computerized ambulatory medical record, and centrality of patient and humanization of clinical pathway.