Literature DB >> 30530530

Performance of colorectal cancer screening in the European Union Member States: data from the second European screening report.

Carlo Senore1, Partha Basu2, Ahti Anttila3, Antonio Ponti1, Mariano Tomatis1, Diama Bhadra Vale4, Gugliemo Ronco1, Isabelle Soerjomataram5, Maja Primic-Žakelj6, Emilia Riggi1, Joakim Dillner7, Miriam Klara Elfström8, Stefan Lönnberg9, Rengaswamy Sankaranarayanan10, Nereo Segnan1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To present comparative data about the performance of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes in the European Union Member States (EU MSs).
DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. We analysed key performance indicators-participation rate, positivity rate (PR), detection rate (DR) and positive predictive value for adenomas and CRC-based on the aggregated quantitative data collected for the second EU screening report. We derived crude and pooled (through a random effects model) estimates to describe and compare trends across different MSs/regions and screening protocols.
RESULTS: Participation rate was higher in countries adopting faecal immunochemical test (FIT) (range: 22.8%-71.3%) than in those using guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) (range 4.5%-66.6%), and it showed a positive correlation (ρ=0.842, p<0.001) with participation in breast cancer screening in the same areas. Screening performance showed a large variability. Compliance with referral for colonoscopy (total colonoscopy (TC)) assessment ranged between 64% and 92%; TC completion rate ranged between 92% and 99%. PR and DR of advanced adenomas and CRC were higher in FIT, as compared with gFOBT programmes, and independent of the protocol among men, older subjects and those performing their first screening.
CONCLUSIONS: The variability in the results of quality indicators across population-based screening programmes highlights the importance of continuous monitoring, as well as the need to promote quality improvement efforts, as recommended in the EU guidelines. The implementation of monitoring systems, ensuring availability of data for the entire process, together with initiatives aimed to enhance reproducibility of histology and quality of endoscopy, represent a priority in screening programmes management. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  colonoscopy; colorectal adenomas; colorectal cancer; colorectal cancer screening

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30530530     DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2018-317293

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gut        ISSN: 0017-5749            Impact factor:   23.059


  32 in total

1.  Decision-making in screening positive participants who follow up with colonoscopy in the Dutch colorectal cancer screening programme: A mixed-method study.

Authors:  Lucinda Bertels; Bart Knottnerus; Lottie Bastiaans; Augustina Danquah; Henk van; Evelien Dekker; Kristel van
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2021-09-17       Impact factor: 3.955

2.  Chronic Constipation as a Risk Factor for Colorectal Cancer: Results From a Nationwide, Case-Control Study.

Authors:  Kyle Staller; Ola Olén; Jonas Söderling; Bjorn Roelstraete; Hans Törnblom; Mingyang Song; Jonas F Ludvigsson
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2021-10-20       Impact factor: 13.576

3.  Simulated performance of flexible sigmoidoscopy-based screening for advanced neoplasia detection in a Greek population.

Authors:  Vasilios Papastergiou; Nicoletta Mathou; Athanasios Giannakopoulos; Aikaterini Evgenidi; Eleftherios Schoretsanitis; Kleio Papaparaskeva; Dimitra Apessou; Konstantina D Paraskeva
Journal:  Ann Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-02-12

4.  A survey on colonoscopy shows poor understanding of its protective value and widespread misconceptions across Europe.

Authors:  Bharat Amlani; Franco Radaelli; Pradeep Bhandari
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-05-21       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 5.  A risk-stratified approach to colorectal cancer prevention and diagnosis.

Authors:  Mark A Hull; Colin J Rees; Linda Sharp; Sara Koo
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2020-10-16       Impact factor: 46.802

Review 6.  Diagnosis and management of small bowel obstruction in virgin abdomen: a WSES position paper.

Authors:  Yousef Amara; Ari Leppaniemi; Fausto Catena; Luca Ansaloni; Michael Sugrue; Gustavo P Fraga; Federico Coccolini; Walter L Biffl; Andrew B Peitzman; Yoram Kluger; Massimo Sartelli; Ernest E Moore; Salomone Di Saverio; Esfo Darwish; Chikako Endo; Harry van Goor; Richard P Ten Broek
Journal:  World J Emerg Surg       Date:  2021-07-03       Impact factor: 5.469

7.  Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic on Colorectal Cancer Screening Delay: Effect on Stage Shift and Increased Mortality.

Authors:  Luigi Ricciardiello; Clarissa Ferrari; Michela Cameletti; Federica Gaianill; Francesco Buttitta; Franco Bazzoli; Gian Luigi de'Angelis; Alberto Malesci; Luigi Laghi
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2020-09-06       Impact factor: 11.382

8.  Effect of Various Invitation Schemes on the Use of Fecal Immunochemical Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Laura Fiona Gruner; Michael Hoffmeister; Leopold Ludwig; Hermann Brenner
Journal:  JMIR Res Protoc       Date:  2020-04-03

9.  Variation of colorectal, breast and prostate cancer screening activity in Switzerland: Influence of insurance, policy and guidelines.

Authors:  Agne Ulyte; Wenjia Wei; Holger Dressel; Oliver Gruebner; Viktor von Wyl; Caroline Bähler; Eva Blozik; Beat Brüngger; Matthias Schwenkglenks
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-04-16       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Long noncoding RNA HCG11 inhibited growth and invasion in cervical cancer by sponging miR-942-5p and targeting GFI1.

Authors:  Yan Zhang; Jun Zhang; Lin Mao; Xing Li
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2020-08-13       Impact factor: 4.452

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.