Evaluation of a combined screening programme for breast, cervical and colorectal cancers in France

Where are we with gastric cancer screening in Europe in 2024?

The absolute number of annual cases of gastric cancer in Europe is rising. The Council of the European Union has recommended implementation of gastric cancer screening for countries or regions with a high gastric cancer incidence and death rates. However, as of 2024 no organised gastric cancer screening programme has been launched in Europe.There are several ways to decrease gastric cancer burden, but the screen and treat strategy for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) seems to be the most appropriate for Europe. It has to be noted that increased use of antibiotics would be associated with this strategy.Only organised population-based cancer screening is recommended in the European Union, therefore gastric cancer screening also is expected to fulfil the criteria of an organised screening programme. In this respect, several aspects of screening organisation need to be considered before full implementation of gastric cancer prevention in Europe; the age range of the target group, test types, H. pylori eradication regimens and surveillance strategies are among them. Currently, ongoing projects (GISTAR, EUROHELICAN, TOGAS and EUCanScreen) are expected to provide the missing evidence. Feedback from the decision-makers and the potential target groups, including vulnerable populations, will be important to planning the programme.This paper provides an overview of the recent decisions of the European authorities, the progress towards gastric cancer implementation in Europe and expected challenges. Finally, a potential algorithm for gastric cancer screening in Europe is proposed.

Effectiveness of One-Stop Screening for Colorectal, Breast, and Prostate Cancers: A Population-Based Feasibility Study

Colorectal cancer (CRC), prostate cancer (PC) and breast cancer (BC) are among the most common cancers worldwide with well-established screening strategies. We aim to investigate the effectiveness and compliance of a one-stop screening service for CRC, PC and BC. Asymptomatic subjects aged 50–75 years were invited. Eligible subjects were offered fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for CRC screening. Serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) and Prostate Health Index (PHI) were offered for male PC screening and mammogram (MMG) for female BC screening as a one-stop service. Colonoscopy was offered to FIT+ subjects, prostate biopsy to PSA/PHI+ (PSA>10/PHI≥35) males and breast biopsy to MMG+ (Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System, BI-RADS≥4) females. From August 2018 to April 2020, 3165 subjects were recruited. All participants (1372 men and 1793 women) were willing to accept FIT for CRC screening, and PSA/PHI test or MMG as second cancer screening. 102 subjects diagnosed advanced neoplasms after colonoscopy. Thirty-three males diagnosed PC after prostate biopsy and 15 females diagnosed BC after breast biopsy. No major complication reported in first tier screening tests. Subjects who were willing to undergo CRC screening were highly likely to accept other cancer screening when offered in a one-stop program. In conclusion, the effectiveness and compliance of a one-stop service for CRC, PC, and BC screening among asymptomatic subjects were high. Future studies should be conducted to test various ways of integrating cancer screening programs.

Integrated Cancer Screening Performance Indicators: A Systematic Review

Cancer screening guidelines recommend that women over 50 years regularly be screened for breast, cervical and colorectal cancers. Population-based screening programs use performance indicators to monitor uptake for each type of cancer screening, but integrated measures of adherence across multiple screenings are rarely reported. Integrated measures of adherence that combine the three cancers cannot be inferred from measures of screening uptake of each cancer alone; nevertheless, they can help discern the proportion of women who, having received one or two types of screening, may be more amenable to receiving one additional screen, compared to those who haven't had any screening and may experience barriers to access screening such as distance, language, and so on. The focus of our search was to identify indicators of participation in the three cancers, therefore our search strategy included synonyms of integrated screening, cervical, breast and colorectal cancer screening. Additionally, we limited our search to studies published between 2000 and 2015, written in English, and pertaining to females over 50 years of age. The following databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, PubMed, PubMed Central, CINAHL, and Nursing Reference Center, as well as grey literature resources. Of the 78 initially retrieved articles, only 7 reported summary measures of screening across the three cancers. Overall, adherence to cervical, breast and colorectal cancer screening ranged from around 8% to 43%. Our review confirms that reports of screening adherence across breast, cervical and colorectal cancers are rare. This is surprising, as integrated cancer screening measures can provide additional insight into the needs of the target population that can help craft strategies to improve adherence to all three screenings.

Comparison of interval breast cancer rates for two-versus single-view screening mammography: a population-based study

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the implementation of two-view mammography was followed by a reduction in the rates of interval cancers.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

We analyzed the data concerning women aged 50-69 who attended the breast cancer screening program between January 1, 1994 and December 31, 2006 in Isère, France. We performed Poisson regressions to estimate age-adjusted rate ratios of women being recalled, cancer detection, and interval cancer for two-view compared to single-view mammography.

RESULTS

After adjusting for age, two-view mammography was associated with a higher risk of cancer detection (1.37 [95% CI, 1.16-1.62]) and with a decreased risk of 12-month (0.46 [95% CI, 0.23-0.92]) and 24-month (0.64 [95% CI, 0.46-0.88]) interval cancer.

CONCLUSION

Two-view mammography for first and subsequent screens is associated with lower rates of interval breast cancer. This is at the expense of an increased number of women being recalled for further assessment after subsequent screens.

[Sensitivity and specificity of the breast screening program in the Isere region based on positive results between 1991 and 1999]

PURPOSE

The screening program guidelines specify that the call back rate of women for additional imaging (positive mammogram) should not exceed 7% at initial screening, and 5% at subsequent screening. Materials and methods. Results in the Isere region (12%) have prompted a review of the correlation between the call back rate and indicators of quality (detection rate, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value) for the radiologists providing interpretations during that time period.

RESULTS

Three groups of radiologists were identified: the group with call back rate of 10% achieved the best results (sensitivity: 92%, detection rate: 0.53%, specificity: 90%). The group with lowest call back rate (7.7%) showed insufficient sensitivity (58%). The last group with call back rate of 18.3%, showed no improvement in sensitivity (82%) and detection rate (0.53%), but showed reduced specificity (82%).

CONCLUSION

The protocol update in 2001 does not resolve this problematic situation and national results continue to demonstrate a high percentage of positive screening mammograms. A significant increase in the number of positive screening examinations compared to recommended guidelines is not advantageous and leads to an overall decrease in the quality of the screening.