2009
DOI: 10.1007/s10198-009-0192-z
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The disease burden of colorectal cancer in Hungary

Abstract: The aim of the paper is to give an overview of the epidemiology, treatment pattern and quality, as well as policy issues and disease burden of colorectal cancer (CRC) in Hungary. Colorectal cancer is the second most common cause of cancer-related death in both males and females in Hungary. The Hungarian Cancer Registry collects data on the epidemiological characteristics of CRC. Two pilot programmes (1997/1998 and 2003/2004) were conducted for population-based screening of CRC using both immunological and guai… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
16
0
6

Year Published

2009
2009
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
(18 reference statements)
1
16
0
6
Order By: Relevance
“…Regarding colorectal cancer, the difference is partly because the C21 ICD code was not included among the selection criteria of our analysis, although it is included in the official colorectal cancer statistics. The number of new cases reported by Boncz et al [15] in colorectal cancer (4677 males and 4085 females in 2001) using the NHIF database is similar to our results. Longitudinal trends in the number of new cases from 2004 to 2011 should be interpreted with care because the run-in screening period to exclude prevalent cases was 7 years longer in 2011 than in 2004, indicating a false decreasing trend.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 94%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Regarding colorectal cancer, the difference is partly because the C21 ICD code was not included among the selection criteria of our analysis, although it is included in the official colorectal cancer statistics. The number of new cases reported by Boncz et al [15] in colorectal cancer (4677 males and 4085 females in 2001) using the NHIF database is similar to our results. Longitudinal trends in the number of new cases from 2004 to 2011 should be interpreted with care because the run-in screening period to exclude prevalent cases was 7 years longer in 2011 than in 2004, indicating a false decreasing trend.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 94%
“…According to the report of Boncz et al [15], in 2001, €38.871 million was spent on colorectal cancer treatment of 40,057 outpatients and 10,187 inpatients, indicating an annual per capita cost of €774, which is less than a quarter of our estimate 10 years later. Direct comparison of cost data reported in this study with previous Hungarian reports, however, is difficult because many potentially relevant articles reported aggregated data on the entire budget for each condition without indicating the number of treated patients [29][30][31].…”
Section: %mentioning
confidence: 94%
“…The FOBT is the most frequently used test [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42], usually mailed or collected from the GP, while FS and COL are used less frequently (Germany, Italy, Poland [37], Portugal [38], the Netherlands [39]; all opportunistic or pilot) and occurring at outpatient clinics. Furthermore, all countries have different start and stop ages, ranging from starting at 50-60 and stopping at 69-74 years, as well as different testing intervals.…”
Section: Screening and Surveillancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…25 In comparison, the Markov model in this study estimated €2800 to be the annual cost per patient with ovarian cancer in Hungary. One Polish study reported the cost of adjuvant treatments in patients with FIGO stage I.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%