[The current state of the diagnostics of breast diseases in Lombardy]

The SIRM study group for senology in Lombardy set the following goals: to quantify the number of radiologist working in public radiology centers and in private credited hospitals in Lombardy; to quantify the number of radiologists working in diagnostic senology and the mean time they devote to this field; to survey the diagnostic equipment used for senology purposes and check its adequacy.

We considered 58 centers of senology diagnostic imaging in the radiology departments of general hospitals in 8 Lombardy provinces. First we evaluated the screening programs for early breast cancer detection carried out with clinical mammography. All data were evaluated with reference to female residents aged 40 to 69, to the average adherence rates reported in the literature, to the protocols adopted in different centers relative to the examination frequency. Mammography was always associated with a physical examination and then the patient was submitted to radiological investigations to make the final diagnosis. The form we used for data report is summarized in Table I.

In the centers for diagnostic senology we surveyed in 1998, in all 182,724 mammograms, 58,686 breast US examinations and 7,097 needle biopsies for cytology or microhistology were performed; 35.5% of the female population which should have been screened actually underwent the examination and 32.6% of them was also submitted to breast US, while 3.88% underwent FNAB. Sixty-three mammographic units and 62 US units were operated by 152 radiologists. An average 2,900 radiographic investigations per mammographic unit were performed yearly. Each radiologist reported an average 1,202 mammograms a year. Refer to the tables for detailed data reporting by province. Thirty-six per cent of radiologists presently reads more than 1,500 breast examinations a year. The radiologists working in diagnostic imaging in senology devote an average 20% of their working time to this field. As for the technical adequacy of mammographic and US equipment relative to some reference levels reported in detail in the paper, only 42% of the former and 48% of the latter were up to standards.

Despite the massive work done in the field of senology, the estimated needs of the female population have not been met yet, given the increased demand for senologic examinations and women's growing awareness of the need of early breast cancer diagnosis. The answer to this problem lies in a political health care policy that should promote the current clinical programs increasing both instrumental and human resources. Alternatively screening programs could be planned on a regional basis, with the pro of reaching a larger female population and that of a more homogeneous methodological approach. Our data indicate that breast cancer detection is best achieved with clinical and screening tools: the former can be easily promoted in a short time and could thus make our first goal, while the latter, which is more complex, could be implemented later. Thus, a growing clinical activity could make a very good basis for high quality breast screening programs. Finally, it is necessary to guarantee high quality standards for equipment, methods and training of medical and nonmedical staff.