{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028948704926358558, 'fraction_numerical': 0.029964448958862366, 'mean_word_length': 5.234177215189874, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Breast cancer screening in Italy: evaluating key performance indicators for time trends and activity volumes.

Together with the National centre for screening monitoring (ONS), GISMa supports annual collection of data on national breast screening activities. Aggregated data on implementation and performance are gathered through a standardized form to calculate process and impact indicators. Analyzed data belong to 153 local programmes in the period 2006-2011 (2006-2012 for participation rate only). During the whole period, Italian crude participation rate exceeded GISMa's acceptable standard (50%), even though a higher participation in northern and central Italy compared to southern Italy and Islands was observed. Time trend analysis of diagnostic indicators confirmed in 2011 an adequate quality of breast screening performance, especially at subsequent screening. Recall rate at initial screening did not reach the acceptable standard (<7%) and rose slightly over the period. On the contrary, a good performance was achieved at subsequent screening. The same trend was followed by the overall detection rate and positive predictive value. They both showed a progressive reduction (from 6.2‰ in 2006 to 4.5‰ in 2011 for DR and from 8.0% in 2006 to 5.2% in 2011 for PPV, respectively) at initial screening and a good, stable trend at subsequent screening. Activity volume analysis shows that in programmes with greater activity (test/year ≥10,000) RR at both initial and subsequent screening has a better performance. This is also true for DR and PPV where programmes with high volumes of activity do better, especially when compared with those that interpret fewer than 5,000 mammograms per year. In spite of a few limits, these results are reassuring, and they reward the efforts made by screening professionals. It is therefore important to continue to monitor screening indicators and suggest, test, and evaluate new strategies for continuous improvement.