Time filter

Source Type

Meldola, Italy

Mangone L.,Quality and Clinical Studies Unit | Minicozzi P.,Analytical Epidemiology and Health Impact Unit | Vicentini M.,Epidemiology and Local Health Unit | Giacomin A.,Epidemiology Unit | And 4 more authors.
Cancer Epidemiology | Year: 2013

Aim: Lung cancer is a major cause of cancer death worldwide. The aims of this study were to analyze presentation, treatment and survival for lung cancer in northern Italy, and identify factors influencing survival. Methods: A total of 1180 lung cancer cases diagnosed in four north Italian cancer registries (Biella, Modena, Reggio Emilia, Romagna) in 2003-2005 were analyzed. Information on morphology, stage, diagnostic examinations, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgical treatment was collected from clinical records. Three-year relative survival and relative excess risks of death were estimated. Results: Overall, 10% of cases were stage I, 50% stage IV, and 12% stage unknown. Romagna - where sophisticated diagnostic examinations were performed more often - had proportionately more microscopically verified cases and resected cases than Biella. Romagna had also high proportions of cases given chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Three-year survival was 14%, range 10% (Biella) to 19% (Romagna); 69% for stage I, 3% for stage IV. Stage I survival was higher in Romagna (82%) than Reggio Emilia and Biella (60-61%) but for operated stage I cases, survival was similar (88%) in Romagna and Biella. The fully adjusted model showed a higher risk of death in Biella (1.23, 95%CI 1.02-1.48) than Modena (reference). Conclusions: Stage and surgery are key factors influencing survival. Centralizing lung cancer treatment to improve diagnostic work-up may improve outcomes. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd.

Bravaccini S.,Biosciences Laboratory | Casadio V.,Biosciences Laboratory | Gunelli R.,Morgagni Pierantoni Hospital | Bucchi L.,Romagna Cancer Registry | And 4 more authors.
Annals of Oncology | Year: 2011

Background: There is a need to improve the performance of urine cytology in bladder cancer diagnosis. We assessed the diagnostic performance of (i) telomerase activity detected by telomeric repeat amplification protocol (TRAP) assay, (ii) cytology and TRAP assay in parallel, (iii) cytology in parallel with the in-series combination of TRAP assay and FISH analysis, and (iv) the in-series combination of TRAP assay and FISH analysis. Patients and methods: Cross-sectional study of 289 consecutive patients who presented with urinary symptoms at a north Italian hospital between 2007 and 2008. All underwent cystoscopy and cytology evaluation, and conclusive results were available for TRAP assay and FISH analysis. Results: Sensitivity and specificity were 0.39 and 0.83, respectively, for cytology; 0.66 and 0.72 for TRAP; 0.78 and 0.60 for the combination of cytology and TRAP; 0.78 and 0.78 for the combination of cytology, TRAP, and FISH; and 0.65 and 0.93 for the combination of TRAP and FISH. All differences versus cytology alone were significant (P £ 0.011). Conclusion: Compared with cytology alone, the combination of cytology, TRAP, and FISH provided the best tradeoff between increase in sensitivity and loss in specificity, especially among non-bleeding patients, low-grade cancers, and early-stage cancers. © The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved.

Bucchi L.,Romagna Cancer Registry | Cristiani P.,Cervical Cancer Screening Unit | Costa S.,University of Bologna | Schincaglia P.,Cancer Prevention Center | And 5 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.

Senore C.,Centro Prevenzione Oncologica Regione Piemonte and Azienda Ospedaliero | Ederle A.,Gastroenterology Unit | Fantin A.,Gastroenterology Unit | Andreoni B.,Surgery Unit II | And 7 more authors.
Journal of Medical Screening | Year: 2011

Objective: Quantitative information on adverse reactions associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests is useful to estimate the balance between benefit and risk in different strategies. Setting: Six Italian screening centres. Methods: Thirty-day active follow-up (interview about side-effects and acceptability of the screening procedure and review of hospital admissions) among average-risk people undergoing flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), total colonoscopy (TC), fecal immunochemical test (FIT) in a multicentre randomized trial of CRC screening. Multivariable logistic models were used to assess determinants of completion rate and self-reported pain. Results: The attendance rate following the first invitation and mail reminder was 28.2% (1696/6018) in the FS and 23.0% (1382/6021) in the TC arm. Response rate to the 30-day follow-up questionnaire was 88.6% (1502/1696) among people undergoing FS, and 86.7% (1198/1382) among those undergoing TC. The proportion of people complaining of serious reactions following bowel preparation (odds ratio [OR], 5.17; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.70-7.24) or reporting severe pain immediately after the exam (OR, 1.86; 95% CI 1.47-2.34) was higher for TC than for FS. The most common post-procedural complaints were abdominal distension and pain. People mentioning pain or bowel distension following preparation were more likely to report severe pain both after FS (OR, 2.13; 95% CI 1.52-2.97) and TC (OR: 2.03; 95% CI 1.41-2.90). The 30-day hospitalization rate was similar after FS, TC and FIT. Conclusions: Screenees reported higher pain levels after TC than FS. The proportion of people complaining of severe side effects after discharge was similar. Bowel preparation was poorly tolerated by people undergoing TC. Subjects' reactions to the bowel preparation was predictive of post-procedural discomfort. A commitment of at least 48 hours was required of people undergoing TC, compared with 3-4 for FS.

Cortecchia S.,Health Care District Hospital | Galanti G.,Health Care District Hospital | Sgadari C.,National Center | 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.

Discover hidden collaborations