Introduction Adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) is an uncommon tumour of the breast. It is known for its rare lymph node involvement and distant metastasis. A triple-negative breast cancer that has a favorable prognosis compared to other triple negative ductal carcinomas, it accounts for approximately 0.1–1% of all breast cancers. Presentation of case We report a case of a 69-year-old female with a palpable left breast mass who underwent multiple imaging modalities with significant size variance between the studies. Breast conserving therapy (BCT) was performed with axillary sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) followed by radiation therapy (RT). Pathological examination confirmed the tumour as ACC. Discussion ACC, known as an persistent if low-grade malignant tumour of salivary gland, is considered to have low-malignant potential in the breast. It is a very rare subtype and from this scant data, there is minimal mention about size discrepancy between imaging modalities such as ultrasound and MRI. No consistent MRI features have been demonstrated, with the exception of T2 hyperintensity in larger lesions and T2 iso-intensity in smaller lesions. Ultrasound demonstrates primarily a hypoechoic or heterogenous mass with minimum vascularity, consistent with our radiographic findings. Conclusion ACC is a rare entity in breast cancer pathology. Its size can be highly variable as measured by various radiographic modalities, and final Pathology from the surgical specimen is, as always, required for an accurate tumoral diameter. With that caveat, careful utilization of pre-operative imaging modalities is critical in pre-surgical planning to choose the appropriate surgery.

ImportanceCancer screening deficits during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic were found to persist into 2021. Cancer-related deaths over the next decade are projected to increase if these deficits are not addressed.ObjectiveTo assess whether participation in a nationwide quality improvement (QI) collaborative, Return-to-Screening, was associated with restoration of cancer screening.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsAccredited cancer programs electively enrolled in this QI study. Project-specific targets were established on the basis of differences in mean monthly screening test volumes (MTVs) between representative prepandemic (September 2019 and January 2020) and pandemic (September 2020 and January 2021) periods to restore prepandemic volumes and achieve a minimum of 10% increase in MTV. Local QI teams implemented evidence-based screening interventions from June to November 2021 (intervention period), iteratively adjusting interventions according to their MTVs and target. Interrupted time series analyses was used to identify the intervention effect. Data analysis was performed from January to April 2022.ExposuresCollaborative QI support included provision of a Return-to-Screening plan-do-study-act protocol, evidence-based screening interventions, QI education, programmatic coordination, and calculation of screening deficits and targets.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was the proportion of QI projects reaching target MTV and counterfactual differences in the aggregate number of screening tests across time periods.ResultsOf 859 cancer screening QI projects (452 for breast cancer, 134 for colorectal cancer, 244 for lung cancer, and 29 for cervical cancer) conducted by 786 accredited cancer programs, 676 projects (79%) reached their target MTV. There were no hospital characteristics associated with increased likelihood of reaching target MTV except for disease site (lung vs breast, odds ratio, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.7 to 4.7). During the preintervention period (April to May 2021), there was a decrease in the mean MTV (slope, −13.1 tests per month; 95% CI, −23.1 to −3.2 tests per month). Interventions were associated with a significant immediate (slope, 101.0 tests per month; 95% CI, 49.1 to 153.0 tests per month) and sustained (slope, 36.3 tests per month; 95% CI, 5.3 to 67.3 tests per month) increase in MTVs relative to the preintervention trends. Additional screening tests were performed during the intervention period compared with the prepandemic period (170 748 tests), the pandemic period (210 450 tests), and the preintervention period (722 427 tests).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this QI study, participation in a national Return-to-Screening collaborative with a multifaceted QI intervention was associated with improvements in cancer screening. Future collaborative QI endeavors leveraging accreditation infrastructure may help address other gaps in cancer care.

Mary was 25 years old and pregnant with her first baby. She was delighted to be pregnant and was intending to breastfeed. When she was 22 weeks pregnant, she discovered that her partner had had an affair with an HIV/AIDS infected woman who had died recently. Mary was convinced that her baby had developed an HIV infection and kept asking the midwives to do something with her baby. Mary needed information, advice and support. The midwives were at a loss about what to do or with whom Mary should discuss the situation.