Search

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.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.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.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.

Flat epithelial atypia (FEA) may represent the earliest precursor of low-grade breast cancer and often coexists with more advanced atypical proliferative breast lesions such as atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) and lobular intraepithelial neoplasia (LIN). The present study aims to investigate the association between morphological parameters of FEA and presence of malignancy at surgical excision (SE) and the clinical significance of the association of FEA with ADH and/or LIN. This study included 589 cases of stereotactic 11-gauge vacuum-assisted needle core biopsy (VANCB), reporting a diagnosis of FEA, ADH or LIN with subsequent SE from 14 pathology departments in Italy. Available slides were reviewed, with 114 (19.4 %) showing a malignant outcome at SE. Among the 190 cases of pure FEA, no statistically significant association emerged between clinical–pathological parameters of FEA and risk of malignancy. Logistic regression analyses showed an increased risk of malignancy according to the extension of ADH among the 275 cases of FEA associated with ADH (p = 0.004) and among the 34 cases of FEA associated with ADH and LIN (p = 0.02). In the whole series, a statistically significant increased malignancy risk emerged according to mammographic R1–R3/R4–R5 categories (OR = 1.56; p = 0.04), extension (OR = 1.24; p = 0.04) and grade (OR = 1.94; p = 0.004) of cytological atypia of FEA. The presence of ADH was associated with an increased malignancy risk (OR = 2.85; p < 0.0001). Our data confirm the frequent association of FEA with ADH and/or LIN. A diagnosis of pure FEA on VANCB carries a 9.5 % risk of concurrent malignancy and thus warrants follow-up excision because none of the clinical–pathological parameters predicts which cases will present carcinoma on SE.

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.