Cancer Screening in the European Union Second Report: Colorectal cancer Screening

Similar documents
Performance of Colorectal cancer screening in the European Union Member States Data from the second European screening report

European Partnership for Screening

QA and Quality Indicators for Cervical Cancer Screening Programs. Guglielmo Ronco MD Senior Epidemiologist CPO Piemonte Turin, Italy

Best practices in collecting and processing data in CRC screening and after it

IL Balance Sheet dei programmi di screening mammografici dell Unione Europea

Cancer Screening in the EU Seminar Report June 2017

Workshop 2011 Screening colon retto

Cancer Screening in the European Union (2017) Report on the implementation of the Council Recommendation on cancer screening. Health and Food Safety

Haemoglobin level at previous negative FIT and risk of neoplasia at subsequent screening rounds. Carlo SENORE

IJC International Journal of Cancer

Practical challenges in establishing and running the Czech national colorectal cancer screening programme

European Cancer Network Aims and Activities

Integrating screening and primary prevention

Czech CRC screening program at the point of switch to the population based design

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Tables 1-6 show a summary of main results related on screen detected cases during (age 50-69). Table 7 shows time trends

Measuring performance and quality indicators of CRC screening

Efficacy, effectiveness, quality: sources of data

A/Prof Brian Cox. Cancer Epidemiologist Dunedin

European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening

Global colorectal cancer screening appropriate or practical? Graeme P Young, Flinders University WCC, Melbourne

Ruolo della biopsia in colposcopia e rischio di carcinoma invasivo. Guglielmo Ronco AOU Città della salute e della scienza di Torino

Country Delegates Workshop March, 2013 Overview of existing breast cancer screening guidelines

Capsule endoscopy screening. Carlo SENORE

ANNUAL REVIEW 2017 SUMMARY

Modelling screening of HPV vaccinated birth cohorts. The infection transmission system

Implementing of Population-based FOBT Screening

The impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality in Europe: a review of trend studies

CT Colonography and CRC screening: an update Andrea Laghi M.D.

Socioeconomic and ethnic inequalities in organized colorectal cancer screening participation

IARC Handbook Volume 17: Colorectal Cancer Screening. Béatrice Lauby-Secretan, PhD on behalf of the IARC Working Group for Volume 17

Interventions to Improve Follow-up of Positive Results on Fecal Blood Tests

European Guide on Quality Improvement in Comprehensive Cancer Control

Design of the Polish Colonoscopy Screening Program: a randomized health services study

Main messages. Chapter 4 Cancer screening: policy recommendations on governance, organization and evaluation of cancer screening

Reflections on the EUnetHTA CRC screening full Core Model pilot 1

An Update on the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Natasha Djedovic, London Hub Director 17 th September 2018

4th EUROPEAN COLORECTAL CANCER DAYS

Table Of Content. Outputs... 7

European Union survey on organization and quality control of cervical cancer screening and HPV vaccination programs

Series ; and National Institute of Cancer Prevention and Research, and WHO-Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Smokeless

Positive Results on Fecal Blood Tests

Colorectal cancer screening in England

Contribution of cancer leagues to the promotion and organisation of cancer screening programmes

The effectiveness of breast cancer screening

The new European (and Italian) guidelines for cervical screening will recommend PAP from 25 to 34 HPV (+ triage) from 35 to 64

Prof Stephen P. Halloran. Update on the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme Focus on BS & FIT

The New Grade A: USPSTF Updated Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines, What does it all mean?

WEO CRC SC Meeting. Barcelona, Spain October 23, 2015

Alcohol & Cancer: from prevention to the patient

The choice of methods for Colorectal Cancer Screening; The Dutch experience

Monitoring of equity in access to CRC screening and CRC care: two sides of the same coin

Debate: General surveillance/screening for colon cancer in a resource constrained environment is imperative

ECIBC overview. Donata LERDA Healthcare Quality Team leader

UPDATE OF THE EUROPEAN CODE AGAINST CANCER

Follow up The way ahead. John Griffith

Screening for Cervical Cancer in Europe

Lessons learnt from cancer screening programmes as an example for establishing the Czech National Coordination Centre

Annual Report. Public Health Screening Programmes TO 31 MARCH Extract: Chapter 3 : Planning for Bowel Screening Programme

Is there justification for levels of polyp competency? Dr Roland Valori Gloucestershire Hospitals United Kingdom

EU Guidelines for quality assurance in organization, implementation and monitoring of colorectal cancer screening programme. Jožica Maučec Zakotnik

Colorectal Cancer Disparities: Addressing the Challenge

(Bowel) Cancer Screening an update. Mike Hulme-Moir Colorectal Surgeon CD NZ Bowel Screening Pilot

The surgeon s perspective

Quality of and compliance with colonoscopy in Lynch Syndrome surveillance: are we getting it right?

THE NEW ZEALAND MEDICAL JOURNAL

Measure #343: Screening Colonoscopy Adenoma Detection Rate National Quality Strategy Domain: Effective Clincal Care

Faecal Immunochemical Testing (FIT) for Screening and Symptomatic Patients

the EUROPEAN COMMISSION INITIATIVE

Are you ready for the Colorectal Cancer Screening Pilot Programme?

PQRS/QCDR/VBPM/GIQuIC -- Making $ense of All the Letters

Bowel Cancer Screening Exploiting science brings better medicine

Screening for GI Cancer Past Present and Future. Prof. Bob Steele University of Dundee

05/07/2018. Organisation. The English screening programme what is happening? Organisation. Bowel cancer screening in the UK is:

SCREENING FOR BOWEL CANCER USING FLEXIBLE SIGMOIDOSCOPY REVIEW APPRAISAL CRITERIA FOR THE UK NATIONAL SCREENING COMMITTEE

Colorectal Cancer Screening

WEO CRC SC Meeting. Barcelona, Spain October 23, 2015

Memorandum of Understanding on the working relations between the European Commission and the European Stability Mechanism

Cancer Screening Program in GEORGIA

Screening di Popolazione. del Cancro Colorettale. C. Hassan

Recent Changes in Cervical Cancer Screening in Canada

CRC screening in the Era of informatics: can data-based knowledge enhance coverage?

Sports Club for Health An Opportunity and Challenge for the European Sports Movement. Jorma Savola Finnish Sport for All Association

FORTE: Five or Ten Year Colonoscopy for 1-2 Non-Advanced Adenomas

Breast cancer screening programme: France. Dr. Rosemary Ancelle-Park Department of health Office for chronic diseases

Pathology in Slovenian CRC screening programme:

Short-term effectiveness of the EU-Dap program

PROTECT Alcohol labelling policies to protect young people

Friday, 17 October 2014: 08:30 11:30 * * * * *

Corneal transplantation: HLA and age

Title:Factors affecting attendance to cervical cancer screening among women in the Paracentral Region of El Salvador

A simple way to measure the burden of interval cancers in breast cancer screening

Thomas Karlsson & Esa Österberg National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health Alcohol and Drug Research Group P.O.

Be it Resolved that FIT is the Best Way to Screen for Colorectal Cancer DEBATE

Cervical cancer screening programmes and policies in 18 European countries

Table Of Content. Information network on rare cancers... 2 Summary... 3 Coordinator, Leader contact and partners Outputs...

City, University of London Institutional Repository

Technical Considerations: the past, present and future of simulation modeling of colorectal cancer

INTERACTION WITH SCREENEES AND PATIENT ORGANIZATIONS

Transcription:

Cancer Screening in the European Union Second Report: Colorectal cancer Screening Wien 14 October 2011 Nereo Segnan MD MSc Epi Center for Epidemiology and Prevention in Oncology, CPO Piedmont WHO Collaborative Center for Cancer Early Diagnosis and Screening University Hospital Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy

No conflict of interest to declare

Second Report on Cancer Screening in the EU Co-financed by the EU Health Programme Main collaborating institutions - International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France (coordination) CPO Piemonte, University Hospital Città della Salute e della Scienza CPO, Turin, Italy Finnish Cancer Registry, Mass Screening Registry, Helsinki, Finland Authors A Ponti, A Anttila, G Ronco, C Senore, N Segnan, M Tomatis, P Basu, M Primic-Žakelj, P Dean, J Dillner, M Fernan, M Elfström, S Lönnberg, R Sankaranaryanan, I Soerjomataram, D Vale, L von Karsa Scientific Committee* L Altenhofen, R Ancelle-Park, N Ascunce, H de Koning, E Lynge, O Májek, F Nicula, J Patnick, J Regula, S Törnberg, M Zappa Over 80 Data providers from all 28 EU Member States* *invited reviewers of full report, and co-authors of publication in peer-reviewed journal

Data Provider s Workshop (22 Member States Participating) 16-17 Feb, 2016; IARC

Second Report on the Implementation of Council Recommendations on Cancer Screening - objectives To document changes in approach to program implementation compared to first report To collect more detailed information on program organization To include selected performance parameters Key determinants of quality and impact recommended in the European QA guidelines Suitable for comparison between Member States

Second Report Standardized Data Output Site Specific Questionnaires to collect information on Program organization, invitation, QA, financing, cost Screening tests, eligibility, screening interval, further assessment Site Specific Tables on annual aggregated data stratified by age groups & initial vs subsequent screening Screening tests Further assessment recommendations Further assessment compliance Outcome of further assessment o Detection rates o Positive predictive values

Necessity of Regular Reporting on Cancer Screening in the EU Current performance determines impact of screening on burden of disease Impact is measurable only after many years Regular monitoring permits timely response to potential problems and recognition of opportunities for improvement Avoids unnecessary harm and cost Maximises benefit of screening

Web Based Data Collection

EU CRC screening Annual target population 50-74 yrs: 69,636,000 Invited: 23,343,000 (33.5%) Screened: 9,985,000 (14.2%)

COLON - Participation rate (All ages) FIT, 10 countries N = 3,621,692 D = 7,313,175 Result = 49.5% (22.8% - 71.3%) gfobt, 6 countries N = 5,352,356 D = 16,158,260 Result = 33.1% (4.5% - 66.6%) Table 4.15 100% N = Individuals screened of invited in the year D = Individuals personally invited in the year 75% 50% 25% 0%

COLON - Participation rate (60-69 years) Table 4.15 FIT, 8 countries N = 1,736,995 D = 3,277,339 Result = 53.0% (28.7% - 74.0%) gfobt, 5 countries N = 3,035,378 D = 7,316,925 Result = 41.5% (5.0% - 66.6%) 100% N = Individuals screened of invited in the year D = Individuals personally invited in the year 75% 50% 25% 0%

20 20 NA 15-20 15 15 20 15-47 20 16-20 180 COLON Screen positivity (60-69 years) Table 4.18.1 FIT, 11 countries N = 144,089 D = 2,195,044 Result = 6.6% (3.1% - 10.6%) gfobt, 6 countries N = 64701 D = 3140223 Result = 2.1% (1.7% - 4.5%) 15% N = Positive screening tests in the year D = Individuals screened in the year with adequate test - test results available 10% 5% 0% «Positivity cut off µg/gr faeces

COLON Detection rate of colorectal cancers (60-69 years) Table 4.18.6 FIT, 9 countries N = 4501 D = 1923252 Result = 2.3 (1.3-4.1 ) gfobt, 5 countries N = 3704 D = 3112437 Result = 1.2 (0.9-2.6 ) 5 N = Colorectal cancers detected D = Individuals screened in the year with adequate test - test results available 4 3 2 1 0

COLON Detection rate of advanced adenomas (60-69 years) Table 4.18.5 FIT, 6 countries N = 25958 D = 1889223 Result = 13.7 (5.8-27.5 ) gfobt, 5 countries N = 6963 D = 3013386 Result = 2.3 (1.0-5.4 ) 30 N = Advanced ademonas detected D = Individuals screened in the year with adequate test - test results available 25 20 15 10 5 0

COLON Detection rate of colorectal cancers (All ages) Table 4.18.6 FIT, 9 countries N = 7519 D = 3751139 Result = 2.0 (1.2-4.9 ) gfobt, 6 countries N = 6545 D = 5529765 Result = 1.2 (0.9-1.9 ) 5 N = Colorectal cancers detected D = Individuals screened in the year with adequate test - test results available 4 3 2 1 0

COLON Detection rate of advanced adenomas (All ages) Table 4.18.5 FIT, 6 countries N = 55059 D = 3713008 Result = 14.8 (7.4-27.0 ) gfobt, 5 countries N = 12706 D = 5143744 Result = 2.5 (0.9-4.6 ) 30 N = Advanced ademonas detected D = Individuals screened in the year with adequate test - test results available 25 20 15 10 5 0

COLON Follow-up colonoscopy participation rate (All ages) Table 4.18.2 FIT, 11 countries N = 187918 D = 266420 Result = 70.5% (36.3% - 92.2%) 100% N = Further colonoscopies performed D = Data on further col. performance available gfobt, 6 countries N = 99037 D = 117844 Result = 84.0% (72.6% - 93.2%) 75% 50% 25% 0%

COLON Completion rate follow-up colonoscopy (All ages) Table 4.18.3 FIT, 7 countries N = 138412 D = 147090 Result = 94.1% (92.4% - 98.8%) 100% N = Further colonoscopies completed D = Data on col. completion available gfobt, 4 countries N = 54813 D = 56496 Result = 97.0% (91.0% - 97.6%) 90% 80% 70% 60% 50%

50-59 60-69 FIT gfobt TC FIT gfobt TC Tests 1753K 1294K 12K 2195K 3140K - Screen positivity 5,1% 2,0% 11,5% 6,6% 2,1% - F.U. colonoscopy participation rate 76,8% 83,1% 82,2% 75,0% 84,5% - Completion rate F.U. colonoscopy 93,9% 97,8% 97,2% 93,7% 96,8% 97,1% Detection Rate advanced adenoma 8,7 2,5 49,5 13,7 2,3 72,4 Detection Rate colorectal cancers 1,1 0,6 3,5 2,3 1,2 8,1

Table 4.21.4. Colorectal cancer screening programmes in the EU Performance indicators by country, age, gender and screening protocol Detection rate of adenomas (%) gfobt 50-59 years 60-69 years 70-74 years 75-79 years Total N D % N D % N D % N D % N D % Women 197 21.570 0,9% Men 99 8.223 1,2% 125 8.444 1,5% 39 2.382 1,6% 263 19.049 1,4% Women 145 33.382 0,4% 145 33.382 0,4% Men 270 26.003 1,0% 270 26.003 1,0% Women 1.791 580.408 0,3% 2.562 540.979 0,5% 1.060 179.799 0,6% 5.413 1.301.186 0,4% Men 3.284 475.523 0,7% 4.289 444.355 1,0% 1.578 145.344 1,1% 9.151 1.065.222 0,9% Women 173 36.491 0,5% 173 36.491 0,5% Men 317 28.571 1,1% 317 28.571 1,1% Women 3.234 906.530 0,4% 1.137 243.963 0,5% 4.371 1.150.602 0,4% Men 5.533 800.172 0,7% 1.759 220.221 0,8% 7.292 1.020.427 0,7% Women 289 114.173 0,3% 462 104.497 0,4% 203 41.272 0,5% 56 1.285 4,4% 1.010 261.227 0,4% Men 647 101.622 0,6% 938 93.034 1,0% 364 34.366 1,1% 99 1.282 7,7% 2.048 230.304 0,9% Women 131 54.636 0,2% 49 19.938 0,2% 180 74.574 0,2% Men 285 47.491 0,6% 100 18.091 0,6% 385 65.582 0,6% Total Women 2.150 703.595 0,3% 6.806 1.686.309 0,4% 2.477 487.734 0,5% 56 1.285 4,4% 11.489 2.879.032 0,4% Total Men 4.030 585.368 0,7% 11.757 1.448.070 0,8% 3.840 420.404 0,9% 99 1.282 7,7% 19.726 2.455.158 0,8%

Thank to Partha Basu (IARC), Mariano Tomatis, Antonio Ponti, Carlo Senore (CPO Piemonte) for providing slides and data Thank you for your attention

Table 4.21.4. Colorectal cancer screening programmes in the EU Performance indicators by country, age, gender and screening protocol Detection rate of adenomas (%) gfobt 50-59 years 60-69 years 70-74 years 75-79 years Total N D % N D % N D % N D % N D % Women 70 9.014 0,8% 99 9.794 1,0% 28 2.762 1,0% 197 21.570 0,9% Men 99 8.223 1,2% 125 8.444 1,5% 39 2.382 1,6% 263 19.049 1,4% Women 145 33.382 0,4% 145 33.382 0,4% Men 270 26.003 1,0% 270 26.003 1,0% Women 1.791 580.408 0,3% 2.562 540.979 0,5% 1.060 179.799 0,6% 5.413 1.301.186 0,4% Men 3.284 475.523 0,7% 4.289 444.355 1,0% 1.578 145.344 1,1% 9.151 1.065.222 0,9% Women 173 36.491 0,5% 173 36.491 0,5% Men 317 28.571 1,1% 317 28.571 1,1% Women 3.234 906.530 0,4% 1.137 243.963 0,5% 4.371 1.150.602 0,4% Men 5.533 800.172 0,7% 1.759 220.221 0,8% 7.292 1.020.427 0,7% Women 289 114.173 0,3% 462 104.497 0,4% 203 41.272 0,5% 56 1.285 4,4% 1.010 261.227 0,4% Men 647 101.622 0,6% 938 93.034 1,0% 364 34.366 1,1% 99 1.282 7,7% 2.048 230.304 0,9% Women 131 54.636 0,2% 49 19.938 0,2% 180 74.574 0,2% Men 285 47.491 0,6% 100 18.091 0,6% 385 65.582 0,6% Total Women 2.150 703.595 0,3% 6.806 1.686.309 0,4% 2.477 487.734 0,5% 56 1.285 4,4% 11.489 2.879.032 0,4% Total Men 4.030 585.368 0,7% 11.757 1.448.070 0,8% 3.840 420.404 0,9% 99 1.282 7,7% 19.726 2.455.158 0,8%

Table 4.21.4. Colorectal cancer screening programmes in the EU Performance indicators by country, age, gender and screening protocol Detection rate of adenomas (%) FIT 50-59 years 60-69 years 70-74 years 75-79 years Total N D % N D % N D % N D % N D % Women 898 119.189 0,8% 1.443 129.721 1,1% 555 41.651 1,3% 286 24.976 1,1% 3.182 315.537 1,0% Men 1.652 85.428 1,9% 2.308 90.206 2,6% 728 29.124 2,5% 334 15.414 2,2% 5.022 220.172 2,3% Women 44 5.673 0,8% 46 5.801 0,8% 22 1.981 1,1% 112 13.455 0,8% Men 45 4.392 1,0% 61 4.297 1,4% 37 1.464 2,5% 143 10.153 1,4% Women 44 2.307 1,9% 45 2.149 2,1% 89 4.456 2,0% Men 64 1.775 3,6% 99 1.629 6,1% 163 3.404 4,8% Women 3.868 189.432 2,0% 2.925 80.347 3,6% 6.793 269.779 2,5% Men 7.230 181.983 4,0% 4.623 72.373 6,4% 11.853 254.356 4,7% Women 4.161 530.280 0,8% 6.198 532.458 1,2% 10.359 1.062.738 1,0% Men 7.025 447.464 1,6% 10.579 459.329 2,3% 17.604 906.793 1,9% Women 1.121 79.937 1,4% 1.244 58.766 2,1% 2.365 138.703 1,7% Men 2.336 65.695 3,6% 2.390 47.550 5,0% 4.726 113.245 4,2% Women 2.100 126.358 1,7% 2.928 115.171 2,5% 5.028 241.529 2,1% Men 4.401 109.270 4,0% 5.585 98.160 5,7% 9.986 207.430 4,8% Total Women 8.368 863.744 1,0% 11.904 844.066 1,4% 577 43.632 1,3% 286 24.976 1,1% 21.135 1.776.418 1,2% Total Men 15.523 714.024 2,2% 21.022 701.171 3,0% 765 30.588 2,5% 334 15.414 2,2% 37.644 1.461.197 2,6%

Table 4.21.4. Colorectal cancer screening programmes in the EU Performance indicators by country, age, gender and screening protocol Detection rate of adenomas (%) Endoscopy 50-59 years 60-69 years 70-74 years 75-79 years Total N D % N D % N D % N D % N D % Women 468 5.567 8,4% 468 5.567 8,4% Men 954 5.996 15,9% 954 5.996 15,9% Women 477 2.402 19,9% 522 2.365 22,1% 999 4.767 21,0% Men 786 2.375 33,1% 833 2.170 38,4% 1.619 4.545 35,6% Women 124 727 17,1% 255 1.142 22,3% 66 241 27,4% 19 108 17,6% 464 2.218 20,9% Men 252 810 31,1% 420 1.134 37,0% 78 243 32,1% 35 99 35,4% 785 2.286 34,3%