Search

Purpose Clinical guidelines' (CGs) adherence supports high-quality care. However, healthcare providers do not always comply with CGs recommendations. This systematic literature review aims to assess the extent of healthcare providers' adherence to breast cancer CGs in Europe and to identify the factors that impact on healthcare providers' adherence. Methods We searched for systematic reviews and quantitative or qualitative primary studies in MEDLINE and Embase up to May 2019. The eligibility assessment, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted by one author and cross-checked by a second author. We conducted a narrative synthesis attending to the modality of the healthcare process, methods to measure adherence, the scope of the CGs, and population characteristics. Results Out of 8137 references, we included 41 primary studies conducted in eight European countries. Most followed a retrospective cohort design (19/41; 46%) and were at low or moderate risk of bias. Adherence for overall breast cancer care process (from diagnosis to follow-up) ranged from 54 to 69%; for overall treatment process [including surgery, chemotherapy (CT), endocrine therapy (ET), and radiotherapy (RT)] the median adherence was 57.5% (interquartile range (IQR) 38.8-67.3%), while for systemic therapy (CT and ET) it was 76% (IQR 68-77%). The median adherence for the processes assessed individually was higher, ranging from 74% (IQR 10-80%), for the follow-up, to 90% (IQR 87-92.5%) for ET. Internal factors that potentially impact on healthcare providers' adherence were their perceptions, preferences, lack of knowledge, or intentional decisions. Conclusions A substantial proportion of breast cancer patients are not receiving CGs-recommended care. Healthcare providers' adherence to breast cancer CGs in Europe has room for improvement in almost all care processes. CGs development and implementation processes should address the main factors that influence healthcare providers' adherence, especially patient-related ones. Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42018092884)., The systematic review was carried out by the Iberoamerican Cochrane Center under Framework Contract 443094 for procurement of services between European Commission Joint Research Centre and Asociacion Colaboracion Cochrane Iberoamericana. YS is funded by China Scholarship Council (No. 201707040103). MR is funded by Sara Borrell contract (CD16/00157). AVM received a training Grant D43 TW007393 Fogarty International Centre of the US National Institutes of Health for the Emerging Diseases and Climate Change Research Unit of the School and Public Health Administration at Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia.

Background In 2017, the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) started developing a methodological framework for a guideline-based quality assurance (QA) scheme to improve cancer quality of care. During the first phase of the work, inconsistency emerged about the use of terminology for the definition, the conceptual underpinnings and the way QA relates to health questions that are answered in guidelines. The objective of this final of three articles is to propose a conceptual framework for an integrated approach to guideline and QA development and clarify terms and definitions for key elements. This work will inform the upcoming European Commission Initiative on Colorectal Cancer (ECICC). Methods A multidisciplinary group of 23 experts from key organizations in the fields of guideline development, performance measurement and quality assurance participated in a mixed method approach including face-to-face dialogue and several rounds of virtual meetings. Informed by results of a systematic literature review that indicated absence of an existing framework and practical examples, we first identified the relations of key elements in guideline-based QA and then developed appropriate concepts and terminology to provide guidance. Results Our framework connects the three key concepts of quality indicators, performance measures and performance indicators integrated with guideline development. Quality indicators are constructs used as a guide to monitor, evaluate, and improve the quality of the structure, process and outcomes of healthcare services; performance measures are tools that quantify or describe measurable elements of practice performance; and performance indicators are quantifiable and measurable units or scores of practice, which should be guided by guideline recommendations. Conclusions The inconsistency in the way key terms of QA are used and defined has confused the field. Our conceptual framework defines the role, meaning and interactions of the key elements for improving quality in healthcare. It directly builds on the questions asked in guidelines and answered through recommendations. These findings will be applied in the forthcoming ECICC and for the future updates of ECIBC. These are large-scale integrated projects aimed at improving healthcare quality across Europe through the development of guideline-based QA schemes; this will help in implementing and improving our approach.

Background Population-based cancer registries constitute an important information source in cancer epidemiology. Studies collating and comparing data across regional and national boundaries have proved important for deploying and evaluating effective cancer-control strategies. A critical aspect in correctly comparing cancer indicators across regional and national boundaries lies in ensuring a good and harmonised level of data quality, which is a primary motivator for a centralised collection of pseudonymised data. The recent introduction of the European Union’s general data-protection regulation (GDPR) imposes stricter conditions on the collection, processing, and sharing of personal data. It also considers pseudonymised data as personal data. The new regulation motivates the need to find solutions that allow a continuation of the smooth processes leading to harmonised European cancer-registry data. One element in this regard would be the availability of a data-validation software tool based on a formalised depiction of the harmonised data-validation rules, allowing an eventual devolution of the data-validation process to the local level. Results A semantic data model was derived from the data-validation rules for harmonising cancer-data variables at European level. The data model was encapsulated in an ontology developed using the Web-Ontology Language (OWL) with the data-model entities forming the main OWL classes. The data-validation rules were added as axioms in the ontology. The reasoning function of the resulting ontology demonstrated its ability to trap registry-coding errors and in some instances to be able to correct errors. Conclusions Describing the European cancer-registry core data set in terms of an OWL ontology affords a tool based on a formalised set of axioms for validating a cancer-registry’s data set according to harmonised, supra-national rules. The fact that the data checks are inherently linked to the data model would lead to less maintenance overheads and also allow automatic versioning synchronisation, important for distributed data-quality checking processes.

BackgroundBreast cancer (BC) clinical guidelines offer evidence-based recommendations to improve quality of healthcare for patients with or at risk of BC. Suboptimal adherence to recommendations has the potential to negatively affect population health. However, no study has systematically reviewed the impact of BC guideline adherence -as prognosis factor- on BC healthcare processes and health outcomes. The objectives are to analyse the impact of guideline adherence on health outcomes and on healthcare costs.MethodsWe searched systematic reviews and primary studies in MEDLINE and Embase, conducted in European Union (EU) countries (inception to May 2019). Eligibility assessment, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted by one author and crosschecked by a second. We used random-effects meta-analyses to examine the impact of guideline adherence on overall survival and disease-free survival, and assessed certainty of evidence using GRADE.ResultsWe included 21 primary studies. Most were published during the last decade (90%), followed a retrospective cohort design (86%), focused on treatment guideline adherence (95%), and were at low (80%) or moderate (20%) risk of bias. Nineteen studies (95%) examined the impact of guideline adherence on health outcomes, while two (10%) on healthcare cost. Adherence to guidelines was associated with increased overall survival (HR=0.67, 95%CI 0.59-0.76) and disease-free survival (HR=0.35, 95%CI 0.15-0.82), representing 138 more survivors (96 more to 178 more) and 336 patients free of recurrence (73 more to 491 more) for every 1000 women receiving adherent CG treatment compared to those receiving non-adherent treatment at 5years follow-up (moderate certainty). Adherence to treatment guidelines was associated with higher costs, but adherence to follow-up guidelines was associated with lower costs (low certainty).ConclusionsOur review of EU studies suggests that there is moderate certainty that adherence to BC guidelines is associated with an improved survival. BC guidelines should be rigorously implemented in the clinical setting.Trial registrationPROSPERO (CRD42018092884)., The systematic review was carried out by the Iberoamerican Cochrane Center under Framework contract 443094 for procurement of services between European Commission Joint Research Centre and Asociacion Colaboracion Cochrane Iberoamericana.; AVM received a training grant D43 TW007393 Fogarty International Centre of the US National Institutes of Health for the Emerging Diseases and Climate Change Research Unit of the School and Public Health Administration at Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia.

Cancer has important impacts on the EU's health systems and economies, with around 3 million new patients diagnosed each year. However, up to 40% of cancers are attributed to preventable causes. For these reasons, cancer is one of the main priorities of the EC in the health domain. The new Europe's Beating Cancer Plan of the EC, to be launched at the end of 2020, aims to support EU Member States to improve cancer control and care, by proposing actions at every key stage of the disease: prevention (lifestyle, pollution, vaccination), diagnosis, treatment and survivorship. Reliable cancer statistics are essential to propel both epidemiological research and political decision making, and provide the supporting evidence to allow assessment of best practices in all those key stages. To this purpose, the European Cancer Information System (ECIS), built on European population-based cancer registries' data, provides the latest information on indicators that quantify the burden of cancer in Europe. It permits the exploration of geographical patterns and temporal trends of incidence, mortality and survival by granting access to harmonised and validated cancer incidence data. Population-based cancer registries have been essential in many of the epidemiological studies that led to the identification of several carcinogens in the work place as well as those linked to certain lifestyle habits such as tobacco and alcohol consumption. However, In conditions of low exposure, the identification of cancer hazards has remained largely inconclusive, due to the unavailability of sufficient exposure data and appropriate models that can account for multiple exposures over extended periods. The linkage between cancer registries data and administrative databases, biobanks, environmental data and extensive lifestyle questionnaires could help identifying or consolidate the available information on emerging carcinogens and populations at risk, thus allowing the development of preventable measures.

Background Up-to-date cancer burden indicators are essential to support political decision making, to enable epidemiological research and as an information source for citizens. Nevertheless, observed cancer incidence and mortality suffer from an endemic registration delay in the data production workflow. To overcome this, the European Commission's Joint Research Centre in collaboration with the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer have computed estimates of cancer incidence and mortality, for the year 2020 and for European countries, in the framework of the European Cancer Information System (ECIS). Methods Predicted values for the year 2020 are based on the incidence data of more than 150 European population-based cancer registries included in the ECIS, and on the WHO mortality database. According to previously developed and applied methodology, the estimates of 2020 cancer incidence and mortality rates were produced for 40 European countries, on the basis of the most recent time trends of observed data, where possible. Estimated rates were then applied to the projected 2020 population from EUROSTAT, to calculate the predicted number of new cases and deaths for 2020 in each European country. Results The number of new cancer cases and deaths in 2020 has been estimated per country by sex and age group, for 25 major cancer sites. The results are included and disseminated through the ECIS web application (https://ecis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/). Conclusions The release of up-to-date cancer incidence and mortality estimates is of crucial importance in supporting evidence-based EU cancer policies. The homogeneity of the estimation methods applied throughout Europe guarantees the comparability of the estimated values between countries. Reliable and comparable estimates enable highlighting differences between countries in cancer incidence and mortality, thus facilitating the identification of possible intervention areas. Key messages The EC’s JRC, in collaboration with WHO’s IARC, have computed estimates of cancer incidence and mortality for the year 2020 for European countries, in the framework of the ECIS. The number of new cancer cases and deaths in 2020 has been estimated in 40 European countries for 25 major cancer sites and included in the ECIS web application (https://ecis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/).

The European Union Council Recommendation of 2 December 2003 on cancer screening suggests the implementation of organised, population- based breast cancer screening programmes based on mammography every other year for women aged 50 to 69 years, ensuring equal access to screening, taking into account potential needs for targeting particular socioeconomic groups. A European survey on coverage and participation, and key organisational and policy characteristics of the programmes, targeting years 2010 and 2014, was undertaken in 2014. Overall, 27 countries contributed to this survey, 26 of the 28 European Union member states (92.9%) plus Norway. In 2014, 25 countries reported an ongoing population- based programme, one country reported a pilot programme and another was planning a pilot. In eight countries, the target age range was broader than that proposed by the Council Recommendation, and in three countries the full range was not covered. Fifteen countries reported not reaching some vulnerable populations, such as immigrants, prisoners and people without health insurance, while 22 reported that participation was periodically monitored by socioeconomic variables (e.g. age and territory). Organised, population- based breast cancer screening programmes based on routine mammograms are in place in most EU member states. However, there are still differences in the way screening programmes are implemented, and participation by vulnerable populations should be encouraged. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Background: Up-to-date cancer burden indicators provide an important source of information for supporting political decision making, as well as for epidemiological research and the general public Nevertheless, observed cancer incidence and mortality suffer from an inherent registration delay in the data production workflow To overcome this, the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre in collaboration with the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer have computed estimates of cancer incidence and mortality, for the year 2020 and for European countries, in the framework of the European Cancer Information System (ECIS) Methods: Predicted values for the year 2020 are based on the incidence data of more than 150 European population-based cancer registries included in ECIS, and on mortality data provided by WHO Ad-hoc statistical models were developed on the basis of the most recent time trends of observed data to estimate cancer incidence and mortality rates in each EU country for the year 2020 Estimated rates were then applied to the projected population figures for 2020 from EUROSTAT in order to calculate the predicted number of new cases and deaths for 2020 in 40 European countries Results: The number of new cancer cases and deaths in 2020 has been estimated per country by sex and age group, for 25 major cancer sites The results are included and disseminated through the European Cancer Information System (ECIS) web application Conclusions: The release of up-to-date cancer incidence and mortality estimates is of great importance to support EU evidence-based cancer policies The homogeneity of the estimation methods applied throughout Europe guarantees the comparability of the estimated values between countries Reliable and comparable estimates highlight differences between countries in cancer incidence and mortality, thus facilitating the identification of possible intervention areas The applied methodology couldn’t take into account the possible impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the projected rates A future exercise to evaluate the discrepancy between projected and observed rates will allow quantification of this impact Legal entity responsible for the study: The authors Funding: European Commission Disclosure: All authors have declared no conflicts of interest

Background: There is still lack of consensus on the benefit-harm balance of breast cancer screening. In this scenario, women's values and preferences are crucial for developing health-related recommendations. In the context of the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer, we conducted a systematic review to inform the European Breast Guidelines. Methods: We searched Medline and included primary studies assessing women's values and preferences regarding breast cancer screening and diagnosis decision making. We used a thematic approach to synthesise relevant data. The quality of evidence was determined with GRADE, including GRADE CERQual for qualitative research. Results: We included 22 individual studies. Women were willing to accept the psychological and physical burden of breast cancer screening and a significant risk of overdiagnosis and false-positive mammography findings, in return for the benefit of earlier diagnosis. The anxiety engendered by the delay in getting results of diagnostic tests was highlighted as a significant burden, emphasising the need for rapid and efficient screening services, and clear and efficient communication. The confidence in the findings was low to moderate for screening and moderate for diagnosis, predominantly because of methodological limitations, lack of adequate understanding of the outcomes by participants, and indirectness. Conclusions: Women value more the possibility of an earlier diagnosis over the risks of a false-positive result or overdiagnosis. Concerns remain that women may not understand the concept of overdiagnosis. Women highly value time efficient screening processes and rapid result delivery and will accept some discomfort for the peace of mind screening may provide.

Background The European Commission has a long-term commitment to reducing cancer burden in the EU. Evaluation of the effectiveness of measures implemented is dependent on accurate and comparable data allowing derivation of cancer indicators (incidence, mortality, survival). For this purpose, the EC Joint Research Centre (JRC) in close collaboration with DG SANTE is maintaining a comprehensive cancer information system for Europe. Methods Population-based cancer registries (CRs) are the information source for the computation of cancer burden indicators. In response to the call from the Council to the Commission to act further in harmonising EU cancer registration, the JRC since 2012 has taken an active role in supporting the activities and exploiting the data of the CRs affiliated to the European Network of Cancer Registries (ENCR). Results The JRC has developed and launched in February 2018 the European Cancer Information System (ECIS) as a web-based tool to report and disseminate cancer burden indicators. The ECIS displays historical time series and projections of cancer incidence and mortality, as well as cancer survival indicators. Statistics in the ECIS are derived from the data of about 150 CRs in 34 European countries, detailing up to 58 cancers sites. The database feeding the ECIS is dynamic and is updated as new data become available. Conclusions ECIS permits the exploration of geographical patterns and temporal trends of cancer burden indicators at national and/or regional level. It constitutes an essential tool to promote awareness on cancer burden, to assess and monitor its magnitude and follow trends and changes over time. ECIS is an important step forward in informing the citizens, assisting political decision making and supporting epidemiological research. Legal entity responsible for the study European Commission. Funding Has not received any funding. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Background The basic scope of population-based cancer registries (CRs) is to collect data that enable computation of cancer incidence. In addition to this, nowadays most registries can provide more extensive information such as data on stage and treatment, which could be used to assess and compare different care pathways. The current analysis reports on treatment by stage patterns for female breast cancer in Europe. Methods Data from CRs included in the European Cancer Information System (ECIS) and having submitted data on stage and treatment for the ENCR-JRC project were analysed. Proportion of cases by treatment type: surgery (SG), radiotherapy (RT), systemic therapy (ST), by stage, age, period and region were calculated. Results 829,247 cases from 20 CRs were analysed. Treatment for stage I (UICC TNM) patients aged 19-74 in 1999-2005 was SG alone (22%), SG+ST (13%) SG+RT (31%), SG+RT+ST (32%). SG alone decreased to 18%, while SG+RT+ST rose to 37% in 2006-13. High variability was observed: in Eastern Europe SG alone was 31%, SG+ST 17%, SG+RT 24%, SG+RT+ST 23% in 2006-13, in Western Europe SG alone was 12%, SG+ST 13%, SG+RT 31%, SG+RT+ST 43%. For age 75+ in 1999-2005 SG (37%) and SG+ST (20%) were higher than in 19-74 patients, while SG+RT (17%) and SG+RT+SG (15%) were lower. SG decreased to 31%, SG+RT+ST rose to 20% in 2006-13. Untreated patients were 3% in both periods. For the regional comparison, in 2006-13 SG alone was 50% in Eastern Europe vs 25% in Western Europe; SG+RT+ST was 9% in Eastern Europe, 24% in Western Europe. In 2006-13 for younger stage IV patients SG alone was 7%, ST alone 29%, SG+ST 18%, SG+RT+ST 14%, no treatment 9%. For 75+ patients SG was 11%, ST 30%, SG+ST 12%, SG+RT+ST 7%, no treatment 15%. Conclusions Variability in treatment patterns was observed by stage, age, period and region. Clinical information from CRs should be routinely used to monitor clinical care patterns, according to national and international recommendations, to compare levels of compliance and inform policy. Legal entity responsible for the study European Commission. Funding Has not received any funding. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

The purpose of our paper is to describe an automatic determination for the morphological code of tumors. The patient disease is described in a natural language and we work with electronic data. The morphological code is obtained by applying a modified Logical Analysis of Data (LAD), developed by the authors, called “successive LAD” method (SLAD).

Mammography screening done by mobile unit is a good tool to identify early breast cancer in remote area. The paper analyzes the problem of optimally planning the traveling of the medical team. The problem is modeled as a bi-criteria traveling salesman problem. An algorithm for determining a lex-min solution of this problem, based on branch and bound method is given.

11096 Background: The study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sequential administration of epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide (EC) followed by surgery and docetaxel (DTX). Methods: All patients (74) with untreated breast cancer stage II and III received epirubicin (E) 100mg/m2 given in 30 min followed by cyclophosphamide (C) 600mg/m2(q3w).After four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the pts were evaluated for response: 46 ( 62.1%) presented PR, 2 (2.7%) CR and 26 ( 35.2%) SD and then they underwent surgery: conservative (17.57%) or radical mastectomy (82.43%).After surgery, the patients received four cycles of docetaxel (DOC) 100mg/m2 (1 hour , q3w). The median age was 46 ( 24–66) years, with 51 ( 69%) premenopausal and 23 (31%) postmenopausal patients. Results: The pathological response was pT1 lower to 2 cm, 41 patients ( 55.41%), pT 2–5 cm, 33 pts ( 44. 59%); pN+ 1–3: 13 pts ( 17.56%); pN+ = 4 and more than four: 61 pts ( 82.44%). Overall survival at 60 months was 59. 57% and DFS was 41.25%. For patients with pN+1–3 , at 5 years DFS was 46.35% and for those with pN+ = 4 and more 4, DFS was 38.25% (p=0.045).Overall survival at 5 years follow-up was 65.74% for pts with pN+ 1–3 and 57.36% for those with pN+=4 and more than 4. Conclusions: Previous interim analysis results of sequential chemotherapy with DTX demonstrate the efficacy and safety of these treatment in breast cancer stage II and III. At 5 years follow-up, we conclude that the use of four cycles of EC followed by sugery and then four cycles of DTX is a reasonable treatment choice for at least some patients with breast cancer st II and III. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

10774 Background: The study was designed to evaluate further the efficacy and safety of capecitabine in patients with MBC previously treated with antracycline and taxane. In addition to response rates and survival times, pts preference for oral therapy and QoL are increasingly important considerations in MBC. Methods: All MBC patients had to have documented progression after antracycline and taxane- containing chemotherapy in neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting, no more than one line for MBC. Treatement comprised 3-week cycles of oral capecitabine 1250 mg/m2 twice- daily for 14 days followed by a 7-day rest period. Results: From December 2002 to November 2005, 35 pts were enrolled. Baseline characteristics of the pts. were: median age 51 years (range 33–73), median ECOG PS 1 (range 0–2) and adequate bone marrow, renal and hepatic functions. Median number of metastatic sites was 2 (range 1–5). The pts were evaluable for response and toxicity and received a total of 162 cycles of chemotherapy. Disease stabilization occurred in 11 pts (31.4%), the overall response was 34.2%, ten pts (28.5%) achieved a partial response, two patients (5.7%) achieved a complete response. Median duration of response was 5 months and median overall survival was 8 months with significant advantage for responding patients. For pts achieving a CR or PR, median survival was 13 months, for SD 10 months and for pts with PD as best response 5 months. The most treatment-related adverse events were grade 1/2 in intensity: grade 3 treatment-related adverse events were hand-foot syndrome (11%), diarrhea (7%), vomiting (5%), and nausea (6%). Pts had a significant, sustained improvement in the following: global health status, role and emotional functioning, social functioning, breast symptoms, arm symptoms and hair loss. Conclusions: This study confirms that capecitabine achieves a high tumor control rate in heavily pretreated MBC pts. Pts had a significant improvement in global health status, with substantial improvements in almost all functional and symptomatic QoL domains. Capecitabine should be considered the reference treatment in this setting based on consistently high efficacy and good tolerability. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

736 Background: A phase II study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of weekly or 3-weekly docetaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Methods: 60 patients with metastatic breast cancer received either docetaxel 35mg/m2 weekly for a median 10 (8–12) consecutive weeks (n=25), or docetaxel 100mg/m2 on day 1 every 3 weeks, 6 cycles (n=35). The median age of patients was 46 years(31–66) with 22(36,6%) premenopausal and 38 (63,4%) postmenopausal. 50 patients (83,3%) received docetaxel as first line treatment for metastatic breast cancer, and the other 10 patients (16,6%) received it as second line treatment. Results: The incidence of all grade 3–4 adverse events was higher in the 3-weekly group than in the weekly group (64 versus 30) and the number of patients with grade 3–4 adverse events was also grater in the 3-weekly group (23 versus 12). Intent to treat overall response rate was 42% and 36% in the 3 weekly and weekly group, respectively. Median time to progression was 5.8 and ...

Population-based screening for early detection and treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) and precursor lesions, using evidence-based methods, can be effective in populations with a significant burden of the disease provided the services are of high quality. Multidisciplinary, evidence-based guidelines for quality assurance in CRC screening and diagnosis have been developed by experts in a project co-financed by the European Union. The 450-page guidelines were published in book format by the European Commission in 2010. They include 10 chapters and over 250 recommendations, individually graded according to the strength of the recommendation and the supporting evidence. Adoption of the recommendations can improve and maintain the quality and effectiveness of an entire screening process, including identification and invitation of the target population, diagnosis and management of the disease and appropriate surveillance in people with detected lesions. To make the principles, recommendations and standards in the guidelines known to a wider professional and scientific community and to facilitate their use in the scientific literature, the original content is presented in journal format in an open-access Supplement of Endoscopy. The editors have prepared the present overview to inform readers of the comprehensive scope and content of the guidelines. Fil: Arrossi, Silvina. Centro de Estudios de Estado y Sociedad; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina Fil: von Karsa, Lawrence. International Agency for Research on Cancer; Francia Fil: Patrick, J.. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes Sheffield; Reino Unido. University of Oxford; Reino Unido Fil: Segnan, N.. International Agency for Research on Cancer; Francia. AO Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino; Italia Fil: Atkin, W.. Imperial College London; Reino Unido Fil: Halloran, S.. University of Surrey; Reino Unido Fil: Saito, H.. National Cancer Centre; Japón Fil: Sauvaget, C.. International Agency for Research on Cancer; Francia Fil: Scharpantgen, A.. Ministry of Health; Luxemburgo Fil: Schmiegel, W.. Ruhr-Universität Bochum; Alemania Fil: Senore, C.. AO Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino; Italia Fil: Siddiqi, M.. Cancer Foundation of India; India Fil: Sighoko, D.. University of Chicago; Estados Unidos. Formerly International Agency for Research on Cancer; Francia Fil: Smith, R.. American Cancer Society; Estados Unidos Fil: Smith S.. University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust; Reino Unido Fil: Suchanek, S.. Charles University; República Checa Fil: Suonio, E.. International Agency for Research on Cancer; Francia Fil: Tong, W.. Chinese Academy of Sciences; República de China Fil: Törnberg, S.. Stockholm Gotland Regional Cancer Centre. Department of Cancer Screening; Suecia Fil: Van Cutsem, E.. Katholikie Universiteit Leuven; Bélgica Fil: Vignatelli, L.. Agenzia Sanitaria e Sociale Regionale; Italia Fil: Villain, P.. University of Oxford; Reino Unido Fil: Voti, L.. Formerly International Agency for Research on Cancer; Francia. University of Miami; Estados Unidos Fil: Watanabe, H.. Niigata University; Japón Fil: Watson, J.. University of Oxford; Reino Unido Fil: Winawer, S.. Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Center; Estados Unidos Fil: Young, G.. Flinders University. Gastrointestinal Services; Australia Fil: Zaksas, V.. State Patient Fund; Lituania Fil: Zappa, M.. Cancer Prevention and Research Institute; Italia Fil: Valori, R.. NHS Endoscopy; Reino Unido