Aesthetic results following breast cancer surgery: A prospective study on 6515 cases from ten Italian Senonetwork breast centers.

Breast cancer treatment has deeply changed in the last decades, since clinical and oncological cure cannot be achieved without patient's satisfaction in term of aesthetic outcomes. Several methods have been proposed to objectively assess these results. However, Italian breast centers have not yet agreed on measurable, reproducible and validated aesthetic outcome indicators to monitor their performance. METHODS: The study was designed and conducted by Senonetwork, a not-for-profit association of Italian breast centers. Ten breast centers were selected based on specific eligibility criteria. This multicentre observational prospective study recruited 6515 patients with diagnosis of in situ or invasive breast cancer who underwent breast surgery in the years 2013-2016. Thirteen indicators of aesthetic results and of related quality of care were analyzed. Data collection and analysis were conducted using a common study database. RESULTS: On average, seven out of ten centers were able to collect data on the proposed indicators with a proportion of missing values < 25%. By expert consensus based on study results, some seven indicators have been defined as "mandatory" while the remaining six have been defined as "recommended" because they require further refinement before they can be proposed for monitoring aesthetic outcomes or because there are doubts on the feasibility of data collection. The minimum standard is reached for 5 of 13 indicators. This finding and the wide range between centers reveal that there is ample room for improvement. CONCLUSIONS: From the present study useful measurable aesthetic parameters have emerged, leading to the definition of target objectives that breast centers can use for benchmarking and improvement of quality of care.

Quality indicators in breast cancer care.

To define a set of quality indicators that should be routinely measured and evaluated to confirm that the clinical outcome reaches the requested standards, Eusoma has organised a workshop during which twenty four experts from different disciplines have reviewed the international literature and selected the main process and outcome indicators available for quality assurance of breast cancer care. A review of the literature for evidence-based recommendations have been performed by the steering committee. The experts have identified the quality indicators also taking into account the usability and feasibility. For each of them it has been reported: definition, minimum and target standard, motivation for selection and level of evidence (graded according to AHRO). In overall 17 main quality indicators have been identified, respectively, 7 on diagnosis, 4 on surgery and loco-regional treatment, 2 on systemic treatment and 4 on staging, counselling, follow-up and rehabilitation. Breast Units in Europe are invited to comply with these indicators and monitor them during their periodic audit meetings.

Minority report - false negative breast assessment in women recalled for suspicious screening mammography: imaging and pathological features, and associated delay in diagnosis.

AIM: We studied imaging, pathology and diagnostic aspects of false negative assessment (FNA) in women recalled for suspicious screening mammography. METHOD: Subjects were women aged 50-69 years undergoing biennial screening mammography within the Florence District screening programme from January 1992-December 2001 (339,953 consecutive screens). We identified all cancers occurring in women recalled to assessment and ascertained, and reviewed, all cases considered as negative on assessment and subsequently diagnosed with breast cancer. We compared imaging features, tumour histology and stage, and diagnostic testing on assessment for all women with cancer, and presentation and length of delay in women falsely negative on assessment. RESULTS: Eleven thousand six hundred and twenty four women were recalled to diagnostic assessment (recall rate = 3.4%) predominantly for suspicious mammography (9,216 positive screens). Breast cancer was missed in 57 cases: a FNA rate of 0.50% (0.37-0.62%) and comprising 4.1% (3.0-5.1%) of cancers occurring in women recalled after a positive screen. Two types of abnormalities were significantly more frequent in FNA cases than cancers detected at assessment: mass with regular borders (21.1 vs. 5.6%, p = 10(-5)), and asymmetrical density (22.8 vs. 5.4%, p = 10(-5)). On review 56% of FNAs were benign or probably benign BI-RADS categories. FNA occurred in 1.4% of early recalls and in 0.4% of initial assessment (p=0.0001). Significantly fewer tests were performed when assessing missed cancers than detected cancers with the most significant difference noted for FNAC (29.8 vs. 96.0%, p=10(-6)); mammography as the only evaluation on assessment was more frequent in missed cancers (31.5% vs 0.2%, p = 10(-6)). The 57 missed cases were subsequently diagnosed at early recall (2 cases), next biennial screen (11 cases), or as interval breast cancers (44 cases) with a mean delay in diagnosis of 628 days. Tumour histology, size and nodal status did not significantly differ between cancers missed and cancers diagnosed on assessment. CONCLUSION: False negatives on assessment represent a minority group in whom screening has failed. They might be reduced by adopting a more intensive diagnostic approach to assessment. Although there was no evidence of a worse prognosis in cancers missed at assessment, the delay in diagnosis is substantial and may impact long-term outcomes.

Analysis of the results of a proficiency test in screening mammography at the CSPO of Florence: review of 705 tests.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of a sample of Italian radiologists undergoing a proficiency test of screening mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analysed the results of 705 tests (537 first tests, 168 repeat tests) taken during 1997-2005 by 537 Italian radiologists. The test, consisting of 17 screen-detected cancer cases and 133 negative controls, was validated by a panel of expert readers defining a minimum standard as to sensitivity for cancer and recall rate of negative controls. Success rates were assessed as a function of previous experience in mammography (years of experience, total mammograms read, mammograms read in the last year). RESULTS: A total of 176 radiologists successfully passed the test at their first attempt (32.7%). Success correlated with experience, measured in terms of years of experience (5-year cutoff: chi(2) for trend=4.17, p=0.04), total mammograms read (chi(2) for trend =11.8, p=0.002) or mammograms read in the last year (chi(2) for trend=6.27, p=0.04). Training improves performance at repeat testing: after a first negative attempt, a second attempt was successful in 50.6% of cases (74/146) and a third in 68.1% (15/22). CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of Italian radiologists taking the test showed limited proficiency in screening mammography. This finding is consistent with several reports of poor performance of service screening compared with reference standards. As expected, test performance is associated with experience, suggesting that the current policy of employing non-dedicated, untrained, general radiologists in screening should be reconsidered. Test performance improves with training (courses, consultation of teaching atlases). Several screening programmes in Italy have been implemented without prior adequate radiologist training. Radiologist training needs to be considered a priority, at least in those screening programmes that are still to be implemented in one third of the country.

Quantification of the effect of mammographic screening on fatal breast cancers: The Florence Programme 1990-96.

Breast cancer cases diagnosed in women aged 50-69 since 1990 to 1996 in the City of Florence were partitioned into those who had been invited to screening prior to diagnosis and those who had not. All cases were followed up for vital status until 31 December 1999. The cumulative number of breast cancer deaths among the cases were divided by screening and invitation status, to give the rates of cancers proving fatal within a period of 8 years of observation (incidence-based mortality). We used the incidence-based mortality rates for two periods (1985-86, 1990-96), pre and during screening. The incidence-based mortality ratio comparing 1990-96 and 1985-86 was 0.50 (95% CI : 0.38-0.66), a significant 50% reduction. For noninvited women, compared to 1985-86, there was a 41% significant mortality reduction (RR=0.59, 95% CI : 0.42-0.82). The comparable reduction in those invited was a significant 55% (RR=0.45, 95% CI : 0.32-0.61). The incidence ratio of rates of cancers stage II or worse was close to one when the noninvited in 1990-96 were compared with 1985-86 (RR=0.97, 95% CI : 0.78-1.21). Excluding prevalent cases, the rate of stage II+ breast cancer cases was 42% lower in Screened women compared with the noninvited (RR=0.58, 95% CI : 0.45-0.74). This study confirmed that new treatments and the first rounds of the screening programme contributed to reducing mortality from breast cancer.