Search

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is an important public health issue in France, justifying a screening policy adapted to individual risk. The general practitioner (GP) is most commonly the initiator of CRC screening. The EDIFICE 2 survey, carried out in 2008 among 600 GPs, showed that 83% of GPs were convinced of the importance of screening, but that only 30% of GPs systematically recommended the procedure. The main underlying reasons were that only 50% of GPs declared themselves sufficiently trained, GPs needed clear guidelines and information supports for patients and a better implication in the programme's overall organization. This important role was confirmed by patients as the second most important reason for not undergoing screening: the absence of recommendation from their treating physician. The optimization of the screening procedure thus requires a stronger implication of GPs, by confirming their pivotal role in CRC screening and by relying on clear reference documentation guaranteeing quality assurance of a national organized screening programme.

International audience; Characteristics of primary-care providers have been associated with their patients' participation in breast cancer screening. A nationwide observational survey, 'EDIFICE', was conducted by telephone from December 2007 to January 2008 on a representative sample of 600 general practitioners (GPs) working in France, to investigate how a GP's characteristics may influence patient participation in screening for breast, colorectal and prostate cancer. For breast cancer screening, systematic recommendation was associated with female physicians [odds ratio (OR) =1.9; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-3.1]. This systematic recommendation was also correlated with systematic referral for colorectal cancer (OR=1.5; 95% CI=1.0-2.5) and prostate cancer screening (OR=2.7; 95% CI=1.8-4.1). For colorectal cancer screening, the sex of the GP had no significant impact. However, systematic recommendation for both breast and prostate cancer screening was shown to be associated with systematic recommendation for colorectal cancer screening (OR=2.7; 95% CI=1.6-4.7 and OR=1.8; 95% CI=1.1-3.0, respectively). For prostate cancer screening, there was no significant sex specificity. However, systematic recommendation for both breast and colorectal cancer screening was associated with an advice on prostate cancer screening (OR=2.9; 95% CI=2.0-4.4 and OR=2.0; 95% CI=1.3-3.2, respectively). The age of the GP was not associated with a higher rate of systematic recommendation for screening for the three types of cancer. Male GPs were more likely than female GPs to perform digital rectal examinations on male patients (69 vs. 54%; OR=1.86; 95% CI=1.31-2.63). There is a global pattern of physicians being screening-prone (as suggested by the cross impact of recommendations from one cancer type to another). Although the frequency of systematic recommendation for breast cancer screening is higher with female GPs, systematic recommendation for prostate cancer is not higher among male GPs. The factors associated with systematic recommendation for screening are both a matter of concern and a target for action, to improve adherence of individuals through GP commitment.

In France, no official recommendations for or against systematic screening for prostate cancer have been issued yet. Therefore, individuals' choices with regard to screening or non-screening, and general practitioners' (GPs) recommendations for or against systematic screening should reflect personal preferences. Four nationwide observational studies (surveys) were conducted in France, two in 2005 and two in 2008, on a representative sample of participants aged between 40 and 75 years and a representative sample of GPs. In 2005, 36% of the male population interviewed, and aged between 50 and 75 years declared having undergone a screening test, compared with 49% in 2008 [odds ratio (OR)=1.63; 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.25-2.12]. In 2008, the number of men interviewed who reported having undergone screening less than 1 year earlier increased from 51% in 2005 to 74% (OR=2.18; 95% CI=1.40-3.40). The screening rate for young men (45-49 years) was only 7% in 2008 (data not available in 2005). In 2005, 58% of GPs systematically recommended prostate cancer screening for their patients aged 50-74 years, whereas in 2008, the figure was 65% (OR=1.32; 95% CI=1.04-1.66). The sex or age of the GPs had no significant impact on this rate. In France, we have observed a highly significant increase in prostate cancer screening: more men are screened, more often, at a younger age and more frequently using a prostate-specific antigen blood test. In our surveys, the observed threshold age for onset of prostate cancer screening is 50 years, almost the same as that for approved organized breast and colorectal screening programmes.

In France, mammography screening is offered to women aged between 50 and 74 years. EDIFICE, the iterative nationwide survey, collected data on a national level about consumers utilization of available cancer screening procedures. This analysis compared data from a subset of 241 women aged between 40 and 50 years with that of 488 women aged between 50 and 74 years. Multivariate analysis showed the following significant factors to be linked with screening attendance for women younger than 50 years: age, with a threshold value at 44 years; awareness of the recommended screening period (2 years); consultation within the last 12 months with a general practitioner or a gynaecologist; and long standing local programme for colon cancer screening. Notwithstanding the debate on risk/benefit of breast cancer screening for women in their 40s, we observed more differences with regard to attendance between women aged 40-45 years versus that of 46-74 years than between women aged 40-49 years versus that of 50-74 years. The issue that is unanswered as yet is, do women make a kind of heuristic for starting breast cancer screening, leading them to a threshold choice of 45 years or alternatively to a collective answer of standard age minus 5 years!

International audience; In France, free faecal occult blood testing is offered to individuals aged between 50 and 74 years every 2 years as a method of screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). To assess how a proposed organized programme of CRC screening would be perceived among a representative sample of individuals living in France, aged between 40 and 75 years, and by a representative sample of general practitioners, two nationwide observational telephone surveys were carried out in 2005 (EDIFICE 1; 1601 individuals) and 2008 (EDIFICE 2; 1801 individuals). In 2008, 38% of individuals aged between 50 and 74 years reported undergoing screening for CRC; this corresponded to a statistically significant 13% increase in CRC screening rate compared with 2005 (P=0.01). When asked whether it was possible to screen for CRC, 94% of individuals who had undergone screening (N=350) responded positively compared with 87% of individuals who had not been screened. The main reason for individuals not to undergo screening was a lack of awareness (35% of men and 37% of women, P=not significant); the second reason was lack of advice and referral from their general practitioner (21% of women versus 15% of men, P=0.03). The French population is aware of the potential benefit of CRC screening; however, many do not undergo regular screening. It is therefore important to identify the hurdles associated with CRC screening.

International audience; Regular mammography screening has been available in France, free of charge, for all women aged 50-74 years since 2005. Two nationwide surveys [EDIFICE 1 (507 women interviewed; age 50-74 years) and EDIFICE 2 (488 women)] recently collected data on individuals' access to cancer screening procedures. Two further surveys interviewed 600 general practitioners (GPs) each to determine their attitudes towards screening in general and screening for breast cancer in particular. The method of quotas ensured the populations surveyed were representative. In 2005, 93%, and in 2008, 94% of women reported having undergone a screening mammography. Anage-related effect was apparent in the 70-74 year subgroup in 2005, whereas in 2008, over 90% of women aged 50-74 years had had a mammography in their lifetime. In 2008, 66% of women had undergone a mammography as a part of an organized screening programme, versus 45% in 2005. In 2005, 15% of women reported having received no recommendation from their GP, whereas this figure fell to 4% in 2008. In both EDIFICE surveys, two thirds of GPs systematically recommended breast cancer screening to female patients aged 50-74 years; however, female GPs were more likely to systematically recommend this screening. In 2008, 77% of the GPs questioned were aware of the recommended frequency for breast cancer screening, compared with 71% in 2005. Results of studies such as EDIFICE may help increase the proportion of women who undergo breast cancer screening. Successful implementation of organized screening relies heavily on treating physicians. The impact of mammography in breast cancer screening may be further improved by systematic organized screening, by encouraging regular examination and by targeting women who give up screening.

International audience; Two nationwide observational surveys were carried out in France in 2005 and 2008 with the aim of assessing the impact on attitudes towards cancer screening of a positive history of cancer among a person's close circle of acquaintances (relatives, friends or colleagues). In 2005, 67% (993/1482) of people interviewed reported having someone in their close circle of acquaintances affected by cancer and in 2008, the rate was 80% (1158/1454). In 2008, having someone within a person's close circle of acquaintances affected by cancer did not increase the rate of screening for breast cancer (already high at >80%). However, it did increase the rate of screening for colorectal cancer [odds ratio (OR)=2.3; 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.6-3.3] and prostate cancer (OR=2.2; 95% CI=1.4-3.5). Knowing someone affected by cancer within the close circle of acquaintances clearly increases awareness, and thus could be an incentive for undergoing cancer screening. With regard to cancer types, such as prostate cancer, for which there is no national programme or media communication, this awareness might be the main source of information and motivation. The impact of awareness on screening behaviour seems to be greatest for the same cancer location as that in the affected acquaintance, as opposed to cancers at other sites. Increased awareness as observed in our survey, which may be attributable to less social stigma associated with a diagnosis of cancer, might increase the rate of screening attendance in the general population.