The real practice of breast cancer diagnosis and treatment is often very different from guideline recommendations. Screening programs should minimize deviations from “best practice”.
The aim of the study was to compare cases detected by screening programs with cases that were not part of the public screening program, analyzing the diagnostic pathways from the first suspected breast problem to therapeutic intervention for breast cancer.
Methods
We interviewed a random sample of 268 women aged 49–70 years in three Italian regions (Lazio, Tuscany, Basilicata) who were treated for breast cancer, stratified by screening participation.
Results
In the nonscreened group, 48% of women were symptomatic and 50% were diagnosed by preventive tests. The proportion of women treated within 30 days of diagnosis was significantly lower in the screened group, 21.3% vs 35.8% (P = 0.0003). The mean number of tests (mammography, ultrasonography, cytology and histology) performed in the screened group was significantly higher than in the nonscreened group, 3.7 vs 2.8 (P = 0.001). The percentage of women treated without a preoperative histological or cytological diagnosis was lower in the screened group than in the nonscreened group, 14% vs 25% (P = 0.024).
Conclusion
Participation in screening programs seems to lead to more appropriate disease management even for breast cancer cases treated at the same hospital.
European Commission:European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Mammography Screening.European Commission, 3rd edition. Luxemburg, 2001.
2.
McKeeM.D., CroppM.D., HylandA., WatrobaN., McKinleyB., EdgeS.B.: Provider case volume and outcome in the evaluation and treatment of patients with mammogram-detected breast carcinoma.Cancer, 95: 704–712, 2002.
3.
SchifanoP., ScarinciM., BorgiaP., PerucciC.A.: Analysis of the recourse to conservative surgery in the treatment of breast tumors.Tumori, 88: 131–136, 2002.
4.
de OliveiraC.F., RodriguesV., GervasioH., PereiraJ.M., AlbanoJ., AmaralN.: Carcinoma in situ and early breast carcinoma. Survey of the Portuguese Senology Society on the diagnostic tools used in Portugal and their evolution between 1985 and 2000.Eur J Gynaecol Oncol, 25: 293–298, 2004.
5.
MayoN.E., ScottS.C., ShenN., HanleyJ., GoldbergM.S., MacDonaldN.: Waiting time for breast cancer surgery in Quebec.CMAJ, 164: 1133–1138, 2001.
6.
NakhlehR.E., ZarboR.J.: Surgical pathology-based outcomes assessment of breast cancer early diagnosis: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study in 199 institutions.Arch Pathol Lab Med, 125: 325–331, 2001.
7.
Giorgi RossiP., FedericiA., FarchiS., ChiniF., BarcaA., GuasticchiG., BorgiaP.: The effect of screening programs on the treatment of benign breast neoplasms: observations from current practice in Italy.J Med Screen, 13: 123–128, 2006.
8.
DistanteV., ManoM.P., PontiA., CataliottiL., FilippiniL., GiorgiD., LazzarettiM.G., MarchesiC., PerfettiE., SegnanN., GISMa Group: Monitoring surgical treatment of screen-detected breast lesions in Italy.Eur J Cancer, 40: 1006–1012, 2004.
9.
FabbriS., PerfettiE., GovoniD., BianchiS., BrancatoB., PaciE., GISMa Working Group: Benign breast diseases in breast cancer screening programs in Italy (2000–2001).Tumori, 90: 547–549, 2004.
10.
GellerB.M., OppenheimerR.G., MickeyR.M., WordenJ.K.: Patient perceptions of breast biopsy procedures for screen-detected lesions.Am J Obstet Gynecol, 190: 1063–1069, 2004.
11.
MontanoD.E., PhillipsW.R.: Cancer screening by primary care physicians: a comparison of rates obtained from physician self-report, patient survey, and chart audit.Am J Public Health, 85: 795–800, 1995.
12.
WhitmanS., LaceyL., AnsellD., ChenE.H., DellJ., PhillipsC.W.: Do chart reviews and interviews provide the same information about breast and cervical cancer screening?Int J Epidemiol,22: 393–397, 1993.
13.
Giorgi RossiP., BrezziS., EspositoG., BrachiniA., RaggiP., FedericiA.: Estimation of Pap-test coverage in an area with an organised screening program: challenges for survey methods.BMC Health Services Research, 6: 36, 2006.
14.
BarrattA., CockburnJ., SmithD., RedmanS.: Reliability and validity of women's recall of mammographic screening.Aust NZJ Public Health, 24: 79–81, 2000.
15.
BrownJ.B., AdamsM.E.: Patients as reliable reporters of medical care process. Recall of ambulatory encounter events.Med Care, 30: 400–411, 1992.
PontiA., MantelliniP., Rosselli del TurcoM.: Assessment and management of breast lesions in Europe Survey Questionnaire.European Breast Cancer Screening Network, Firenze, 2003.
18.
Lega Italiana per la Lotta Contro i Tumori: Fattori di rischio per il cancro della mammella (FRICAM).ASL Città di Milano, Milano, 2002.
19.
GhoshK., MeltonLJ3rd, SumanV.J., GrantC.S., SterioffS., BrandtK.R., BranchC., SellersT.A., HartmannL.C.: Breast biopsy utilization: a population-based study.Arch Intern Med, 165: 1593–1598, 2005.
20.
MeijnenP., PeterseJ.L., OldenburgH.S., WoerdemanL.A., RutgersE.J.: Changing patterns in diagnosis and treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.Eur J Surg Oncol, 31: 833–839, 2005.
21.
BarreauB., TastetS., PicotV., DeghayeM., BraultI., MarelleP., AucantD., HaberS.: Study on the management of patients following detection of a “probably benign” mammographic abnormality (ACR BI-RADS category 3): a review of 176 radiologists.J Radiol, 85: 1927–1936, 2004.
22.
CarmonM., RivkinL., Abu-DaloR., GoldbergM., OlshaO., HadasI., ZagalI., StranoS., FisherA., LernauO.: Increased mammographic screening and use of percutaneous image-guided core biopsy in non-palpable breast cancer: impact on surgical treatment.Isr Med Assoc J, 6: 326–328, 2004.
23.
GiordanoL., GiorgiD., FasoloG., SegnanN., Rosselli del TurcoM.: Breast cancer screening: characteristics and results of the Italian programmes in the Italian group for planning and evaluating breast cancer screening programmes (GISMa).Tumori, 82: 31–37, 1996.
24.
BuiattiE., BarchielliA., BartolacciS., FedericoM., De LisiV., BucchiL., FerrettiS., PaciE., SegnanN., TuminoR., SCREENREG Working Group: The impact of organised screening programmes on the stage-specific incidence of breast cancer in some Italian areas.Eur J Cancer, 39: 1776–1782, 2003.
25.
MantelliniP., CardonaG., CasellaD., CattaliniI., De MasiS., FrancesconiD., Herd-SmithA., MaffeiC., TanziniD., ValcheraA.G., ZaniA., DistanteV.: I controlli di qualità del trattamento chirurgico per il carcinoma mammario: l'esperienza di alcune Aziende Sanitarie della Toscana. In: I programmi di screening della regione Toscana - Sesto rapporto annuale,Rosselli Del TurcoM., MantelliniP. (Eds), CSPO, Firenze, 2005.
26.
CiattoS., CecchiniS., Rosselli del TurcoM., GrazziniG., IossaA., BartoliD.: Referral policy and positive predictive value of call for surgical biopsy in the Florence Breast Cancer Screening Program.J Clin Epidemiol, 43: 419–423, 1990.
27.
Rabe-HeskettS., SkrondalA., PicklesA.: Reliable estimation of generalised linear mixed models using adaptive quadrature.Stata Journal, 2: 1–21, 2001.
28.
PontiA., ManoM.P., DistanteV., TaffurelliM., NaldoniC., Zan-girolamiF., VettorazziM., ZorziM., PaganoG., FedericiA., BaiocchiD., BordonR., TomatisM., MantelliniP., CataliottiL., Rosselli del TurcoM., SegnanN.: Audit system on quality of breast cancer diagnosis and treatment (QT): results from the survey on screen-detected lesions in Italy, 2003–2004.Epidemiol Prev,30(Suppl 3): 59–63, 2006.
