Dear Editor,
The article “Multidisciplinary meeting for breast cancer care: EUSOMA recommendations for optimization” raises methodological and interpretative concerns [1]. The manuscript presents ‘EUSOMA recommendations’, yet according to the official EUSOMA breast centre certification register, fewer than 15% of the centres represented by the authors are EUSOMA-certified [2]. Consequently, more than 85% of the recommendations originate from centres that have not undergone EUSOMA audit or certification. Author affiliation or expertise cannot be equated with EUSOMA-certified practice, creating a fundamental legitimacy gap.
The methodology of the survey lacks essential transparency. The manuscript does not report which specific centres participated, despite referring to 43 of 44 European centres, while the official EUSOMA register listed 45 certified centres at the time [2]. Moreover, the analysis appears to conflate EU versus non-EU centres with EUSOMA-certified versus non-certified practice, although EUSOMA certification is not restricted to EU countries. This lack of clarity regarding centre selection and categorization precludes independent verification, meaningful benchmarking against EUSOMA quality indicators, and assessment of representativeness.
Despite these limitations, the manuscript frames its conclusions as ‘EUSOMA recommendations’, thereby implying normative authority. However, in the absence of transparent centre-level data, certification-based stratification, audit results, or benchmarking against EUSOMA quality indicators, the survey cannot support representative statements about ‘EUSOMA practice’. This is particularly relevant given the availability of an updated EUSOMA quality indicator framework, which explicitly anchors multidisciplinary care in measurable, auditable standards [3]. The work should therefore be interpreted as an expert consensus and descriptive survey, rather than guidance grounded in EUSOMA-audited implementation.
EUSOMA is a quality label with a clearly defined meaning, grounded in external audit, verification, and measurable quality indicators. When its name is used, a clear distinction between certified practice and expert opinion is essential. Without such distinction, the authority of EUSOMA as a marker of verified quality is at risk of dilution.
Funding
None.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
- 1.Curigliano G., Marotti L., Barrios C., Battisti N.M.L., Cheung K.L., Chia S., et al. Multidisciplinary meeting for breast cancer care: EUSOMA recommendations for optimization. Breast. 2025;85 doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2025.104682. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.EUSOMA . 2026. Breast centres certification. EUSOMA website. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Rubio I.T., Marotti L., Biganzoli L., Aristei C., Athanasiou A., Campbell C., et al. EUSOMA quality indicators for non-metastatic breast cancer: an update. Eur J Cancer. 2024;198 doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2023.113500. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]