Search

There are currently screening programmes for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer in many European countries. However, the uptake of cancer screening in general may vary within and between countries. The aim of this study is to assess the inequalities in testing utilization by socio-economic status and whether the amount of inequality varies across European regions. We conducted an analysis based on cross-sectional data from the second wave of the European Health Interview Survey from 2013 to 2015. We analysed the use of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer testing by socio-economic position (household income, educational level and employment status), socio-demographic factors, self-perceived health and smoking behaviour, by using multinomial logistic models, and inequality measurement based on the Slope index of inequality (SII) and Relative index of inequality (RII). The results show that the utilization of mammography (Odds Ratio (OR) = 0.55, 95% confidence interval (95%CI):0.50–0.61), cervical smear tests (OR = 0.60, 95%CI:0.56–0.65) and colorectal testing (OR = 0.82, 95%CI:0.78–0.86) was overall less likely among individuals within a low household income compared to a high household income. Also, individuals with a non-EU country of birth, low educational level and being unemployed (or retired) were overall less likely to be tested. The income-based inequality in breast (SII = 0.191;RII = 1.260) and colorectal testing utilization (SII = 0.161;RII = 1.487) was the greatest in Southern Europe. For cervical smears, this inequality was greatest in Eastern Europe (SII = 0.122;RII = 1.195). We concluded that there is considerable inequality in the use of cancer tests in Europe, with inequalities associated with household income, educational level, employment status, and country of birth.

Background. Validated microsimulation models have been shown to be useful tools in providing support for colorec- tal cancer (CRC) screening decisions. Aiming to assist European co

Introduction Primary colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical test (FIT) are the most commonly used colorectal cancer (CRC) screening modalities. Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) might be an alternative. Data on the performance of CCE as a CRC screening tool in a screening population remain scarce. This is the first systematic review to provide an overview of the applicability of CCE as a CRC screening tool. Methods A systematic search was conducted of literature published up to September 2020. Studies reporting on CRC screening by second-generation CCE in an average-risk screening population were included. Results 582 studies were identified and 13 were included, comprising 2485 patients. Eight studies used CCE as a filter test after a positive FIT result and five studies used CCE for primary screening. The polyp detection rate of CCE was 24 % - 74 %. For polyps > 6 mm, sensitivity of CCE was 79 % - 96 % and specificity was 66 % - 97 %. For polyps ≥ 10 mm, sensitivity of CCE was 84 % - 97 %, which was superior to computed tomographic colonography (CTC). The CRC detection rate for completed CCEs was 93 % (25/27). Bowel preparation was adequate in 70 % - 92 % of examinations, and completion rates varied from 57 % to 92 %, depending on the booster used. No CCE-related complications were described. Conclusion CCE appeared to be a safe and effective tool for the detection of CRC and polyps in a screening setting. Accuracy was comparable to colonoscopy and superior to CTC, making CCE a good alternative to colonoscopy in CRC screening programs, although completion rates require improvement.

Background. Validated microsimulation models have been shown to be useful tools in providing support for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decisions. Aiming to assist European countries in reducing CRC mortality, we developed and validated three regional models for evaluating CRC screening in Europe. Methods. Microsimulation Screening Analysis–Colon (MISCAN-Colon) model versions for Italy, Slovenia, and Finland were quantified using data from different national institutions. These models were validated against the best available evidence for the effectiveness of screening from their region (when available): the Screening for COlon REctum (SCORE) trial and the Florentine fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening study for Italy; the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention (NORCCAP) trial and the guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) Finnish population-based study for Finland. When published evidence was not available (Slovenia), the model was validated using cancer registry data. Results. Our three models reproduced age-specific CRC incidence rates and stage distributions in the prescreening period. Moreover, the Italian and Finnish models replicated CRC mortality reductions (reasonably) well against the best available evidence. CRC mortality reductions were predicted slightly larger than those observed (except for the Florentine FIT study), but consistently within the corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Conclusions. Our findings corroborate the MISCAN-Colon reliability in supporting decision making on CRC screening. Furthermore, our study provides the model structure for an additional tool (EU-TOPIA CRC evaluation tool: http://miscan.eu-topia.org) that aims to help policymakers and researchers monitoring or improving CRC screening in Europe.

Contains fulltext : 220005.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), In Europe at present, but also in 2040, 1 in 3 cancer-related deaths are expected to be caused by digestive cancers. Endoscopic technologies enable diagnosis, with relatively low invasiveness, of precancerous conditions and early cancers, thereby improving patient survival. Overall, endoscopy capacity must be adjusted to facilitate both effective screening programs and rigorous control of the quality assurance and surveillance systems required. 1 : For average-risk populations, ESGE recommends the implementation of organized population-based screening programs FOR COLORECTAL CANCER: , based on fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), targeting individuals, irrespective of gender, aged between 50 and 75 years. Depending on local factors, namely the adherence of the target population and availability of endoscopy services, primary screening by colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy may also be recommendable. 2 : In high-risk populations, endoscopic screening FOR GASTRIC CANCER: should be considered for individuals aged more than 40 years. Its use in countries/regions with intermediate risk may be considered on the basis of local settings and availability of endoscopic resources. 3 : For esophageal and pancreatic cancer, endoscopic screening may be considered only in high-risk individuals:- FOR SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA: , in those with a personal history of head/neck cancer, achalasia, or previous caustic injury; - FOR BARRETT'S ESOPHAGUS (BE)-ASSOCIATED ADENOCARCINOMA: , in those with long-standing gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms (i. e., > 5 years) and multiple risk factors (age ≥ 50 years, white race, male sex, obesity, first-degree relative with BE or esophageal adenocarcinoma [EAC]). - FOR PANCREATIC CANCER SCREENING: , endoscopic ultrasound may be used in selected high-risk patients such as those with a strong family history and/or genetic susceptibility.

Background: Populations differ with respect to their cancer risk and screening preferences, which may influence the performance of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs. This review aims to systematically compare the mortality effect of CRC screening across European regions. Methods: Six databases including Embase, Medline, Web of Science, PubMed publisher, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library were searched for relevant studies published before March 2018. Bibliographic searches were conducted to select studies assessing the effect of various screening tests (guaiac fecal occult blood test [gFOBT]; flexible sigmoidoscopy [FS]; fecal immunochemical test [FIT] and colonoscopy) on CRC mortality in Europe (PROSPERO protocol: CRD42016042433). Abstract reviewing, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were conducted independently by two reviewers. Results: A total of 18 studies were included; of which, 11 were related to gFOBT, 4 to FS, 2 to FIT and 1 to colonoscopy; 8 were randomised clinical trials, and 10, observational studies, and an approximately equal number of studies represented Northern, Western and Southern European regions. Among individuals invited to screening, CRC mortality reductions varied from 8% to 16% for gFOBT and from 21% to 30% for FS. When studies with a high risk of bias were considered, ranges were more extensive. The estimated effectiveness of gFOBT and FS screening appeared similar across different European regions. Conclusions: CRC mortality impact of inviting individuals with similar adopted screening strategies (gFOBT or FS) may be consistent across several European settings.

Objectives: Screening for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer in an average-risk population is widely recommended in national and international guidelines although their implementation varies. Using a conceptual framework that draws on implementation and health systems research, we provide an overview of systematic literature reviews that address health system and service barriers or facilitators to effective cancer screening. Methods: Using a systematic approach, we searched Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Web of Science, PsychInfo and other internet sources. We included systematic reviews of screening interventions (i.e. targeting people at average risk) for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer. The analysis included 90 systematic reviews. Results: This review identified a multitude of barriers and facilitators affecting the health system, the capabilities of individuals in the system and their intentions. A large proportion of the available evidence focused on uptake. The reviews demonstrated that health system factors influenced participation, as well as quality and effectiveness of the service provided. The barriers with the biggest impact were knowledge/education, mainly of clients but also providers (capability barriers) and beliefs and values (intention barriers) of the eligible population. These findings complement the usual focus on psychological and social barriers to informed participation by individuals that dominate the screening literature. The facilitators with the most supporting evidence were educational interventions (overcoming capability and intention barriers), invitation letters, reminders and appointments. These were mainly directed at eligible individuals and, to a lesser extent, to providers and healthcare professionals. Only a small number of reviews, mainly from Europe, specified organized, rather than opportunistic, screening programmes. In those, low participation was the most frequently cited ba

Objective To maximize benefits and reduce potential harms of organized cancer screening programs in Europe, monitoring, quality assurance, and evaluation of long-term impact are required. We aimed to identify the most important indicators to be collected and reported. The study was designed to establish a consensus within a European-level working group and suggest a manageable list of key indicators. Methods We conducted a Delphi study among p

Background: All-cause mortality has been suggested as an end-point in cancer screening trials in order to avoid biases in attributing the cause of death. The aim of this study was to investigate which sample size and follow-up is needed to find a significant reduction in all-cause mortality. Methods: A literature review was conducted to identify previous studies that modeled the effect of screening on all-cause mortality. Microsimulation modeling was used to simulate breast cancer, lung cancer, and colorectal cancer screening trials. Model outputs were: cancer-specific deaths, all-cause deaths, and life-years gained per year of follow-up. Results: There were large differences between the evaluated cancers. For lung cancer, when 40 000 high-risk people are randomized to each arm, a significant reduction in all-cause mortality could be expected between 11 and 13 years of follow-up. For breast cancer, a significant reduction could be found between 16 and 26 years of follow-up for a sample size of over 300 000 women in each arm. For colorectal cancer, 600 000 persons in each arm were required to be followed for 15-20 years. Our systematic literature review identified seven papers, which showed highly similar results to our estimates. Conclusion: Cancer screening trials are able to demonstrate a significant reduction in all-cause mortality due to screening, but require very large sample sizes. Depending on the cancer, 40 000-600 000 pa

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United European Gastroenterology present a list of key performance measures for endoscopy services. We recommend that these performance measures be adopted by all endoscopy services across Europe. The measures include those related to the leadership, organization, and delivery of the service, as well as those associated with the patient journey. Each measure includes a recommendation for a minimum and target standard for endoscopy services to achieve. We recommend that all stakeholders in endoscopy take note of these ESGE endoscopy services performance measures to accelerate their adoption and implementation. Stakeholders include patients and their advocacy groups; service leaders; staff, including endoscopists; professional societies; payers; and regulators.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United European Gastroenterology (UEG) have identified that the quality of endoscopy procedures as a major priority. Aiming to raise the quality of everyday endoscopy, the ESGE Quality Improvement Initiative has developed a set of consensus-and evidence-based key performance measures for the main activity areas of clinical endoscopy (i.e. upper and lower gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, small bowel, pancreas and biliary tract) and for endoscopy services. Each measure includes a recommendation for a minimum and target standard to achieve. The list of key performance measures for endoscopy services includes those related to the leadership, organization and delivery of the service, as well as those associated with the patient journey. The adoption and implementation of these measures by all relevant stakeholders (including patients and their advocacy groups, health professionals, scientific societies, payers and regulators) would favour the provision of high quality, safe, accurate, patient-centered and accessible endoscopic care.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) together with the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) recently developed a short list of performance measures for small-bowel endoscopy (i.e. small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy) with the final goal of providing endoscopy services across Europe with a tool for quality improvement. Six key performance measures for both small-bowel capsule endoscopy and for device-assisted enteroscopy were selected for inclusion, with the intention being that practice at both a service and endoscopist level should be evaluated against them. Other performance measures were considered to be less relevant, based on an assessment of their overall importance, scientific acceptability, and feasibility. Unlike lower and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, where performance measures had already been identified, this is the first time that small-bowel endoscopy quality measures have been proposed.

The benefits of population-based screening for breast cancer are now accepted although, in practice, programmes often fail to achieve their full potential. In this paper, we propose a conceptual model that situates screening programmes within the broader health system to understand the factors that influence their outcomes. We view the overall screening system as having multiple sub-systems to identify the population at risk, generate knowledge of effectiveness, maximise uptake, operate the programme, and optimise follow-up and assurance of subsequent treatment. Based on this model we have developed the Barriers to Effective Screening Tool (BEST) for analysing government-led, population-based screening programmes from a health systems perspective. Conceived as a self-assessment tool, we piloted the tool with key informants in six European countries (Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Italy, The Netherlands and Slovenia) to identify barriers to the optimal operation of population-based breast ca

The aim of this study was to identify barriers to effective cervical and colorectal cancers screening programmes in Europe. The Barriers to Effective Screening Tool (BEST), based on a health systems approach, was completed by teams of three to six experts on cancer screening in each of the six countries involved in leading the EU-TOPIA project (TOwards imProved screening for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer In All of Europe). While the basic components of screening systems and the challenges they face, such as low participation, are similar, there are also many differences, both in the structures underpinning particular functions, such as maintenance of populationregisters and monitoring outcomes, and the ways that they operate. Many of these lie outside the strict organisational boundaries of screening programmes. BEST offers a means to identify and prioritise issues for further detailed exploration. The holistic health systems approach to assessing barriers differs from previous approaches. Those focus on individual characteristics that determine participation. The approach described here provides additional opportunities to improve outcomes with measures that are largely within the control of those managing the health system.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United European Gastroenterology present a list of key performance measures for endoscopy services. We recommend that these performance measures be adopted by all endoscopy services across Europe. The measures include those related to the leadership, organization, and delivery of the service, as well as those associated with the patient journey. Each measure includes a recommendation for a minimum and target standard for endoscopy services to achieve. We recommend that all stakeholders in endoscopy take note of these ESGE endoscopy services performance measures to accelerate their adoption and implementation. Stakeholders include patients and their advocacy groups; service leaders; staff, including endoscopists; professional societies; payers; and regulators.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key and one minor performance measures for EUS and ERCP, for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at centre and endoscopist level: 1 Adequate antibiotic prophylaxis before ERCP (key performance measure, at least 90%); 2 antibiotic prophylaxis before EUS-guided puncture of cystic lesions (key performance measure, at least 95%); 3 bile duct cannulation rate (key performance measure, at least 90%); 4 tissue sampling during EUS (key performance measure, at least 85%); 5 appropriate stent placement in patients with biliary obstruction below the hilum (key performance measure, at least 95%); 6 bile duct stone extraction (key performance measure, at least 90%); 7 post-ERCP pancreatitis (key performance measure, less than 10%); and 8 adequate documentation of EUS landmarks (minor performance measure, at least 90%). This present list of quality performance measures for ERCP and EUS recommended by the ESGE should not be considered to be exhaustive; it might be extended in future to address further clinical and scientific issues.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at a center and endoscopist level: 1 rate of adequate bowel preparation (minimum standard 90%); 2 cecal intubation rate (minimum standard 90%); 3 adenoma detection rate (minimum standard 25%); 4 appropriate polypectomy technique (minimum standard 80%); 5 complication rate (minimum standard not set); 6 patient experience (minimum standard not set); 7 appropriate post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations (minimum standard not set). Other identified performance measures have been listed as less relevant based on an assessment of their importance, scientific acceptability, feasibility, u