Invitation strategies and coverage in the population-based cancer screening programmes in the European Union

The aim of this study was to describe the compliance of the population-based cancer screening programmes in the European Union Member States to the invitation strategies enumerated in the European Guidelines and the impact of such strategies on the invitational coverage. Experts in screening programme monitoring from the respective countries provided data. Coverage by invitation was calculated as the proportion of individuals in the target age range receiving a screening invitation over the total number of annualized eligible population. The invitation strategies of 30 breasts, 25 cervical and 27 colorectal national or regional population-based screening programmes are described. Individual mail invitations are sent by 28 breasts, 20 cervical and 25 colorectal screening programmes. Faecal occult blood test kits are sent by post in 17 of the colorectal cancer screening programmes. The majority of programmes claimed to have a population registry, although some use health insurance data as the database for sending invitations. At least 95% invitation coverage was reached by 16 breast, six cervical and five colorectal screening programmes. Majority of the programmes comply with the invitation strategies enumerated in the European guidelines, although there is still scope for improvements. Coverage by invitation is below the desirable level in many population-based cancer screening programmes in European Union.

High-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in human papillomavirus self-sampling of screening non-attenders

BACKGROUND

Self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) offered to women who do not participate in cervical cancer screening is an increasingly popular method to increase screening coverage. The rationale behind self-sampling is that unscreened women harbour a high proportion of undetected precancer lesions. Here, we compare the cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (⩾CIN2) detection rate between non-attenders who participated in self-sampling and women attending routine screening.

METHODS

A total of 23 632 women who were qualified as non-attenders in the Copenhagen Region were invited for HPV-based self-sampling. Of these, 4824 women returned a self-sample, and HPV-positive women were referred for cytology and HPV co-testing as follow-up. The entire cohort and a reference cohort (3347 routinely screened women) were followed for histopathology confirmed ⩾CIN2. Odds ratio (OR) and the relative positive predictive value of ⩾CIN2 detection between the two populations were estimated.

RESULTS

Women participating in self-sampling had a higher ⩾CIN2 detection than women undergoing routine cytology-based screening (OR=1.83, 95% CI: 1.21-2.77) and a similar detection as routinely screened women tested with cytology and HPV testing (OR=1.03, 95% CI: 0.75-1.40). The positive predictive value for ⩾CIN2 was higher in screening non-attenders than in routinely HPV- and cytology-screened screened women (36.5% vs 25.6%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Self-sampling offered to non-attenders showed higher detection rates for ⩾CIN2 than routine cytology-based screening, and similar detection rates as HPV and cytology co-testing. This reinforces the importance of self-sampling for screening non-attenders in organised cervical cancer screening.