Cancer Incidence and Mortality: The Priority of Screening Frequency and Population Coverage

Abstract

N a t i o n a l p r o g r a m s o f t e n a r e d e s i g n e d t oreduce the impact of a major health problem. Yet the available research base that informs these policy decisions does not always provide the answers to some critical questions. The national health promotion and disease prevention objectives for the United States, which were devised to prevent and control cancer by the year 2000, include recommendations to increase the use of screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1990):• increase the coverage of clinical breast exams and mammography every two years to at least 60 percent of women aged 50 and older • increase the coverage of Pap tests every one to three years to at least 85 percent of women aged 18 and older • increase fecal occult blood testing every one to two years to at least 50 percent of people aged 50 and olderThe availability of further data or consideration of additional issues might improve these recommendations. The U.S.

Screening practice and misplaced priorities

“…In any case, the participation of almost the whole general population in cancer screening programmes is of extreme importance since the benefits of screening programmes for curable cancers are achieved only if coverage is high [19].…”

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Cervical Cancer Screening Invitation Letters

“…The reduced probability of a cervical cancer diagnosis after a negative screening test is high for three years after the last Pap test and then declines by 4% per year (Colditz GA et al, 1997). Therefore, even six to nine years after a negative test, considerable protection remains for screened women compared to unscreened women regardless of other risk factors (Colditz GA et al, 1997).…”

“…Therefore, even six to nine years after a negative test, considerable protection remains for screened women compared to unscreened women regardless of other risk factors (Colditz GA et al, 1997).…”

“…, 1996). This may be because in most Latin American countries, cervical cancer screening programs are linked to family planning and prenatal care programs that focus on women less than 30 years of age; consequently, older, higher-risk women are not screened (Robles SC et al, 1996 Colditz et al (1997) used the 1986 IARC study results and participation rates from the US National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) to estimate the reduction in cervical cancer incidence by frequency of screening among American women (Table 6) (Colditz GA et al, 1997). According to the NHIS, 49% of women in the US are screened annually, 16% are screened every three years, and 35% have not been screened in at least three years.…”

“…According to the NHIS, 49% of women in the US are screened annually, 16% are screened every three years, and 35% have not been screened in at least three years. Colditz et al (1997) In 2009, Sasieni et al published the results of a large case-control study that examined the age-specific effectiveness of cervical cancer screening (Sasieni P et al, 2009 …”