Meldola, Italy
Meldola, Italy

Time filter

Source Type

Sant M.,Fondazione IRCSS Instituto Nazionale dei Tumori | Minicozzi P.,Fondazione IRCSS Instituto Nazionale dei Tumori | Allemani C.,Fondazione IRCSS Instituto Nazionale dei Tumori | Cirilli C.,Modena Cancer Registry | And 16 more authors.
Cancer Epidemiology | Year: 2012

Background: Population-based cancer registry studies of care patterns can help elucidate reasons for the marked geographic variation in cancer survival across Italy. The article provides a snapshot of the care delivered to cancer patients in Italy. Methods: Random samples of adult patients with skin melanoma, breast, colon and non-small cell lung cancers diagnosed in 2003-2005 were selected from 14 Italian cancer registries. Logistic models estimated odds of receiving standard care (conservative surgery plus radiotherapy for early breast cancer; surgery plus chemotherapy for Dukes C colon cancer; surgery for lung cancer; sentinel node biopsy for >1. mm melanoma, vs. other treatment) in each registry compared to the entire sample (reference). Results: Stage at diagnosis for breast, colon and melanoma was earlier in north/central than southern registries. Odds of receiving standard care were lower than reference in Sassari (0.68, 95%CI 0.51-0.90) and Napoli (0.48, 95%CI 0.35-0.67) for breast cancer; did not differ across registries for Dukes C colon cancer; were higher in Romagna (3.77, 95%CI 1.67-8.50) and lower in Biella (0.38, 95%CI 0.18-0.82) for lung cancer; and were higher in Reggio Emilia (2.37, 95%CI 1.12-5.02) and lower in Ragusa (0.27, 95%CI 0.14-0.54) for melanoma. Conclusions: Notwithstanding limitations due to variations in the availability of clinical information and differences in stage distribution between north/central and southern registries, our study shows that important disparities in cancer care persist across Italy. Thus the public health priority of reducing cancer survival disparities will not be achieved in the immediate future. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd.


Bucchi L.,Romagna Cancer Registry | Cristiani P.,Cervical Cancer Screening Unit | Costa S.,University of Bologna | Schincaglia P.,Cancer Prevention Center | And 3 more authors.
BMC Health Services Research | Year: 2013

Abstract. Background: Colposcopy, the key step in the management of women with abnormal Pap smear results, is a visual technique prone to observer variation, which implies the need for prolonged apprenticeship, continuous training, and quality assurance (QA) measures. Colposcopy QA programmes vary in level of responsibility of organizing subjects, geographic coverage, scope, model, and type of actions. The programmes addressing the clinical standards of colposcopy (quality of examination and appropriateness of clinical decisions) are more limited in space and less sustainable over time than those focused on the provision of the service (resources, accessibility, etc.). This article reports on the protocol of a QA programme targeting the clinical quality of colposcopy in a population-based cervical screening service in an administrative region of northern Italy. Methods/design. After a situation analysis of local colposcopy audit practices and previous QA initiatives, a permanent web-based QA programme was developed. The design places more emphasis on providing education and feedback to participants than on testing them. The technical core is a log-in web application accessible on the website of the regional Administration. The primary objectives are to provide (1) a practical opportunity for retraining of screening colposcopists, and (2) a platform for them to interact with colposcopists from other settings and regions through exchange and discussion of digital colposcopic images. The retraining function is based on repeated QA sessions in which the registered colposcopists log-in, classify a posted set of colpophotographs, and receive on line a set of personal feedback data. Each session ends with a plenary seminar featuring the presentation of overall results and an interactive review of the test set of colpophotographs. This is meant to be a forum for an open exchange of views that may lead to more knowledge and more diagnostic homogeneity. The protocol includes the criteria for selection of colpophotographs and the rationale for colposcopic gold standards. Discussion. This programme is an ongoing initiative open to further developments, in particular in the area of basic training. It uses the infrastructure of the internet to give a novel solution to technical problems affecting colposcopy QA in population-based screening services. © 2013 Bucchi et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.


Minicozzi P.,Fondazione IRCSS Instituto Nazionale Dei Tumori | Cirilli C.,University of Modena and Reggio Emilia | Federico M.,University of Modena and Reggio Emilia | Capocaccia R.,Instituto Superiore Of Sanita | And 9 more authors.
Tumori | Year: 2012

Aims and background. Population-based cancer registry studies of patterns of care can help elucidate reasons for differences in breast cancer survival across Italy documented by previous studies. The aims of the present study were to investigate acrosscountry variation in stage at presentation and standard care for breast cancer cases diagnosed in Italy in the early 2000s. Methods. Samples of adult (≥15 years) women with breast cancer diagnosed in 2003-2005 were randomly selected in 9 Italian cancer registries. Logistic regression models were used to estimate the odds of receiving breast-conserving surgery plus radiotherapy (BCS + RT) in each cancer registry, age group, and disease stage category compared with the entire sample (reference); the z test was used to evaluate differences in proportions of stage at diagnosis, employment of chemotherapy in nodepositive (N+) disease, and use of endocrine treatment in estrogen-receptor positive (ER+) and negative (ER-) tumors across Italy. Results. Stage at diagnosis was earlier in northern/central registries than in southern areas. Compared with the reference, the odds of receiving BCS + RT was significantly lower in Trapani, Sassari and Naples (southern Italy) after adjusting for age and stage at diagnosis. Among N+ patients, 73% received adjuvant chemotherapy (range, 51% [Biella, northern Italy] to 87% [Ragusa, southern Italy]). Eighty percent of ER+ cancers (range, 50% [Biella, northern Italy] to 97% [Ragusa, southern Italy]) and 18% of ER-cancers (range, 6% [Modena, northern Italy] to 28% [Umbria, central Italy]) were treated with hormonal therapy. Conclusions. Disparities in stage distributions and conservative surgery in breast cancer persist across Italy. On a positive note, we found lower variations in the use of systemic treatment between Italian regions. © Il Pensiero Scientifico Editore.


Lepage C.,University of Burgundy | Ciccolallo L.,Fondazione IRCCS Instituto Nazionale dei Tumori | Ciccolallo L.,Instituto Nazionale dei Tumori | De Angelis R.,Instituto Superiore Of Sanita | And 64 more authors.
International Journal of Cancer | Year: 2010

The aim of this study was to report on malignant digestive endocrine tumours (MDET) prognosis in several European countries. We analysed survival data from 19 cancer registries in 12 European countries on 3,715 MDET diagnosed between 1985 and 1994. The overall 5-year survival rate was 47.5%. It was 58.1% for differentiated MDET and 8.1% for small-cell MDET (p < 0.001), 55.9% for patients under 65 and 37.0% for older patients. Survival rates for small intestinal and colorectal were higher than for the other sites. The 5-year relative survival rates were 60.3% in Northern Europe, 53.6% in Western Continental Europe, 42.5% in the UK, 37.6% in Eastern Europe (p < 0.001). Among well-differentiated pancreatic tumours, 5-year relative survival was 55.6% for insulinoma, 48.4% for gastrinoma, 33.4% for glucagonoma, 28.8% for carcinoïd tumours and 49.9% for non-functioning tumours. The relative excess risk of death was significantly lower in Western Continental Europe and Northern Europe and significantly higher in Easter European compared to the UK. MDET differentiation, site, geographic area, age and sex, were independent prognostic factors. Overall, in Europe approximately half of the patients with MDET survive 5 years after the initial diagnosis. Prognosis varies with tumour differentiation, anatomic site and histological type. There are significant differences in survival from MDET among European countries, independently of other prognostic factors.


Ravaioli A.,Romagna Cancer Registry | Foca F.,Romagna Cancer Registry | Colamartini A.,Romagna Cancer Registry | Falcini F.,Romagna Cancer Registry | Bucchi L.,Romagna Cancer Registry
BMC Medicine | Year: 2010

Background: Although poorly described in the literature, the practice of early (short-interval) rescreen after a negative screening mammogram is controversial due to its financial and psychological burden and because it is of no proven benefit.Methods: The present study targeted an Italian 2-yearly screening programme (Emilia-Romagna Region, 1997-2002). An electronic dataset of 647,876 eligible negative mammography records from 376,257 women aged 50-69 years was record-linked with the regional breast cancer registry. The statistical analysis addressed the following research questions: (1) the prevalence of recommendation for early (<24 months) rescreen (RES) among negative mammography reports; (2) factors associated with the likelihood of a women receiving RES; and (3) whether women receiving RES and women receiving standard negative reports differed in terms of proportional incidence of interval breast cancer, recall rate at the next rescreen, detection rate of breast cancer at the next rescreen and the odds of having late-stage breast cancer during the interscreening interval and at the next rescreen.Results: RES was used in eight out of 13 screening centres, where it was found in 4171 out of 313,320 negative reports (average rate 1.33%; range 0.05%-4.33%). Reports with RES were more likely for women aged 50-59 years versus older women (odds ratio (OR) 1.33; 95% CI 1.25-1.42), for the first versus subsequent screening rounds (OR 1.91; 95% CI 1.79-2.04) and with a centre-specific recall rate below the average of 6.2% (OR 1.41; 95% CI 1.32-1.50). RES predicted a 3.51-fold (95% CI 0.94-9.29) greater proportional incidence of first-year interval cancers, a 1.90-fold (95% CI 1.62-2.22) greater recall rate at the next screen, a 1.72-fold (95% CI 1.01-2.74) greater detection rate of cancer at the next screen and a non-significantly decreased risk of late disease stage (OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.23-1.53).Conclusion: The prevalence of RES was in line with the maximum standard level established by the Italian national guidelines. RES identified a subset of women with greater incidence of interval cancers and greater prevalence of cancers detected at the next screen. © 2010 Ravaioli et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.


Sant M.,Fondazione IRCCS Instituto Nazionale dei Tumori | Allemani C.,Fondazione IRCCS Instituto Nazionale dei Tumori | Tereanu C.,Fondazione IRCCS Instituto Nazionale dei Tumori | De Angelis R.,Instituto Superiore Of Sanita | And 54 more authors.
Blood | Year: 2010

Changing definitions and classifications of hematologic malignancies (HMs) complicate incidence comparisons. HAEMACARE classified HMs into groupings consistent with the latest World Health Organization classification and useful for epidemiologic and public health purposes. We present crude, age-specific and age-standardized incidence rates for European HMs according to these groupings, estimated from 66 371 lymphoid malignancies (LMs) and 21 796 myeloid malignancies (MMs) registered in 2000-2002 by 44 European cancer registries, grouped into 5 regions. Age-standardized incidence rates were 24.5 (per 100 000) for LMs and 7.55 for MMs. The commonest LMs were plasma cell neoplasms (4.62), small B-cell lymphocytic lymphoma/chronic lymphatic leukemia (3.79), diffuse B-cell lymphoma (3.13), and Hodgkin lymphoma (2.41). The commonest MMs were acute myeloid leukemia (2.96), other myeloproliferative neoplasms (1.76), and myelodysplastic syndrome (1.24). Unknown morphology LMs were commonest in Northern Europe (7.53); unknown morphology MMs were commonest in Southern Europe (0.73). Overall incidence was lowest in Eastern Europe and lower in women than in men. For most LMs, incidence was highest in Southern Europe; for MMs incidence was highest in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Differences in diagnostic and registration criteria are an important cause of incidence variation; however, different distribution of HM risk factors also contributes. The quality of population-based HM data needs further improvement. © 2010 by The American Society of Hematology.


Bucchi L.,Romagna Cancer Registry
BMC Health Services Research | Year: 2011

Background: The prevalence of breast cancer in developed countries has steadily risen over recent decades. Immediate and long-term health needs of patients, including preventive care and screening services, are receiving increasing attention. A question still unresolved is whether breast cancer survivors should receive mammographic surveillance in the clinical or screening setting and, thus, whether they should be excluded from, or invited to, organised mammography screening programmes. The objective of this article is to discuss the many contradictory aspects of this matter. Discussion. Problems with mammographic surveillance of breast cancer survivors include: weak evidence of a reduction in mortality; lack of evidence in favour of one setting or the other; lack of evidence-based guidelines for the frequency and duration of surveillance; disproportionate emphasis placed on the first few years post-treatment, probably dictated by surgical and oncological priorities; a variety of screening policies, as these women are permanently or temporarily or partially excluded from many - but not all - organised screening programmes worldwide; an even greater disparity in follow-up protocols used in the clinical setting; a paucity of data on compliance to mammographic surveillance in both settings; and a difficulty in coordinating the roles of health care providers. In the future, the use of mammography in breast cancer survivors will be influenced by the inclusion of women aged > 69 years in organised screening programmes and the implementation of multidisciplinary breast units, and will probably be investigated by research activities on individual risk assessment and risk-tailored screening. In the interim, current problems can be partially alleviated with some technical solutions in screening data recording, patient flows, and care coordination. Summary. Mammographic surveillance of breast cancer survivors is situated at the crossroads of numerous different specialist areas of breast cancer control and management. The solutions for current problems probably lie in some important modifications in the conventional screening procedure that are underway or under study. These developments appear to be directed towards a partial modification of the screening rationale, with an adaptation to meet the diversified breast care needs of women. The complexity of the matter constitutes a call to action for several entities to eliminate the barriers to effective research in this field. © 2011Bucchi; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.


Cortecchia S.,Health Care District Hospital | Galanti G.,Health Care District Hospital | Sgadari C.,Instituto Superiore Of Sanita | Costa S.,University of Bologna | And 7 more authors.
International Journal of Gynecological Cancer | Year: 2013

Objective: The p16Ink4a (p16) tumor-suppressor protein is a biomarker for activated expression of human papillomavirus oncogenes. However, data are insufficient to determine whether p16 overexpression predicts the risk for progression of low-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). This study was aimed at evaluating the risk for progression to CIN2 or worse during a 3-year follow-up of an unselected series of 739 patients with CIN1 biopsy specimens tested for p16 expression. Methods: Positivity of p16 was defined as a diffuse overexpression in the basal/parabasal cell layers. Selection biases were ruled out using a control group of 523 patients with CIN1 biopsies not tested for p16 expression. Analysis was based on the ratio of progression rates. Results: In the first year of follow-up, the 216 patients (29%) with p16-positive CIN1 had a higher progression rate (12.3%) than did the 523 patients with p16-negative CIN1 (2.2%) (rate ratio, 5.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.59-11.71). In the second and third years, differences were smaller (rate ratio, 1.32 and 1.14, respectively) and not significant. The patients with p16-positive CIN1 also had a lower risk for regression to normal in the first year of follow-up (rate ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.71) and nonsignificant changes in the second and third years (rate ratio, 0.81 and 0.84, respectively). Conclusions: The patients with p16-positive CIN1 had an increased risk for progression that was concentrated in the first year of follow-up. Immunostaining of p16 could have a role in short-term surveillance of patients with CIN1. Further research should focus on midterm/ long-term outcomes of p16-positive CIN1. Copyright © 2013 by IGCS and ESGO.


Although poorly described in the literature, the practice of early (short-interval) rescreen after a negative screening mammogram is controversial due to its financial and psychological burden and because it is of no proven benefit.The present study targeted an Italian 2-yearly screening programme (Emilia-Romagna Region, 1997-2002). An electronic dataset of 647,876 eligible negative mammography records from 376,257 women aged 50-69 years was record-linked with the regional breast cancer registry. The statistical analysis addressed the following research questions: (1) the prevalence of recommendation for early (<24 months) rescreen (RES) among negative mammography reports; (2) factors associated with the likelihood of a women receiving RES; and (3) whether women receiving RES and women receiving standard negative reports differed in terms of proportional incidence of interval breast cancer, recall rate at the next rescreen, detection rate of breast cancer at the next rescreen and the odds of having late-stage breast cancer during the interscreening interval and at the next rescreen.RES was used in eight out of 13 screening centres, where it was found in 4171 out of 313,320 negative reports (average rate 1.33%; range 0.05%-4.33%). Reports with RES were more likely for women aged 50-59 years versus older women (odds ratio (OR) 1.33; 95% CI 1.25-1.42), for the first versus subsequent screening rounds (OR 1.91; 95% CI 1.79-2.04) and with a centre-specific recall rate below the average of 6.2% (OR 1.41; 95% CI 1.32-1.50). RES predicted a 3.51-fold (95% CI 0.94-9.29) greater proportional incidence of first-year interval cancers, a 1.90-fold (95% CI 1.62-2.22) greater recall rate at the next screen, a 1.72-fold (95% CI 1.01-2.74) greater detection rate of cancer at the next screen and a non-significantly decreased risk of late disease stage (OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.23-1.53).The prevalence of RES was in line with the maximum standard level established by the Italian national guidelines. RES identified a subset of women with greater incidence of interval cancers and greater prevalence of cancers detected at the next screen.


PubMed | Romagna Cancer Registry
Type: | Journal: BMC health services research | Year: 2011

The prevalence of breast cancer in developed countries has steadily risen over recent decades. Immediate and long-term health needs of patients, including preventive care and screening services, are receiving increasing attention. A question still unresolved is whether breast cancer survivors should receive mammographic surveillance in the clinical or screening setting and, thus, whether they should be excluded from, or invited to, organised mammography screening programmes. The objective of this article is to discuss the many contradictory aspects of this matter.Problems with mammographic surveillance of breast cancer survivors include: weak evidence of a reduction in mortality; lack of evidence in favour of one setting or the other; lack of evidence-based guidelines for the frequency and duration of surveillance; disproportionate emphasis placed on the first few years post-treatment, probably dictated by surgical and oncological priorities; a variety of screening policies, as these women are permanently or temporarily or partially excluded from many - but not all - organised screening programmes worldwide; an even greater disparity in follow-up protocols used in the clinical setting; a paucity of data on compliance to mammographic surveillance in both settings; and a difficulty in coordinating the roles of health care providers. In the future, the use of mammography in breast cancer survivors will be influenced by the inclusion of women aged > 69 years in organised screening programmes and the implementation of multidisciplinary breast units, and will probably be investigated by research activities on individual risk assessment and risk-tailored screening. In the interim, current problems can be partially alleviated with some technical solutions in screening data recording, patient flows, and care coordination.Mammographic surveillance of breast cancer survivors is situated at the crossroads of numerous different specialist areas of breast cancer control and management. The solutions for current problems probably lie in some important modifications in the conventional screening procedure that are underway or under study. These developments appear to be directed towards a partial modification of the screening rationale, with an adaptation to meet the diversified breast care needs of women. The complexity of the matter constitutes a call to action for several entities to eliminate the barriers to effective research in this field.

Loading Romagna Cancer Registry collaborators
Loading Romagna Cancer Registry collaborators