Participation rates for organized colorectal cancer screening programmes: an international comparison

Klabunde, Carrie N.; Blom, Johannes; Bulliard, Jean‐Luc; Garcia, Montse; Hagoel, Lea; Mai, Verna; Patnick, Julietta; Rozjabek, Heather; Senore, Carlo; Törnberg, Sven

doi:10.1177/0969141315584694

Cited by 114 publications

(113 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

108

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Quantitative data about screening performance indicators were not available from previous reports5 6 or were limited to data about participation rates 8. The authors of the ICSN report6 had concluded that the development of quality assurance protocols and indicators to allow commonly understandable results to be reported across all participants represented a priority for future monitoring efforts.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Senore

Basu

Anttila

et al. 2018

Gut

Self Cite

121

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo present comparative data about the performance of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes in the European Union Member States (EU MSs).DesignCross-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.ResultsParticipation 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.ConclusionsThe 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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Senore

Basu

Anttila

et al. 2018

Gut

Self Cite

121

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…4 asked representatives of 12 countries participating in the International Cancer Screening Network program to describe their G-fecal occult blood test (FOBT)/fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based CRC screening programs. They found that the overall uptake/participation rate varied markedly: from 7 to 67.7%.…”

Section: Participation Rates Of Colorectal Cancer Screening Programsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Screening for colorectal cancer: the role of the primary care physician

Triantafillidis

Vagianos

Gikas³

et al. 2017

European Journal of Gastroenterology &Amp; Hepatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, the role of primary care physicians (PCPs) in the diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal disorders, including screening for colorectal cancer (CRC), has been recognized as very important. The available data indicate that PCPs are not adequately following CRC screening guidelines because a number of factors have been identified as significant barriers to the proper application of CRC screening guidelines. These factors include lack of time, patient reluctance, and challenges related to scheduling colonoscopy. Further positive engagement of PCPs with CRC screening is required to overcome these barriers and reach acceptable levels in screening rates. To meet the expectations of modern medicine, PCPs should not only be able to recommend occult blood testing or colonoscopy but also, under certain conditions, able to perform colonoscopy. In this review, the authors aim to provide the current knowledge of the role of PCPs in increasing the rate and successfully implementing a screening program for CRC by applying the relevant international guidelines.

show abstract

“…FIT is associated with high positive predictive value, and thereby high accuracy in detecting CRC [5]. However, tests for screening based on fecal sampling are hampered by low compliances rates [6,7]; the consequence is limited clinical sensitivity [8] due to undiagnosed cases of CRC.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pre-analytical variables of circulating cell-free nucleosomes containing 5-methylcytosine DNA or histone modification H3K9Me3

Rasmussen

Herzog

Rømer

et al. 2016

Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Participation rates for organized colorectal cancer screening programmes: an international comparison

Cited by 114 publications

References 21 publications

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

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

Screening for colorectal cancer: the role of the primary care physician

Pre-analytical variables of circulating cell-free nucleosomes containing 5-methylcytosine DNA or histone modification H3K9Me3

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About