Cancer screening at the level of state programs: review, recommendations and management
https://doi.org/10.21045/2782-1676-2021-1-1-19-31
Abstract
An overview of existing cancer screening programs, their organization system, and the main implementation parameters is presented. The methods of primary screening that have been shown to be effective in reducing mortality from certain cancers, as well as the reasons for the lack of screening programs in relation to some of them, are listed. The existing screening programs and their main characteristics are considered, and examples of using economic analysis to change screening programs are given. It is noted that in countries even with a large coverage, for example, in the United States and Germany, there is no single national register of screening, and the invitation system does not have a population-based nature. Although the large coverage and development of health systems in these countries allows for the positive effects of opportunistic screening, its effectiveness is lower than in countries with organized programs, and the costs are higher.
About the Authors
A. A. Barchuk
ФГБУ «НМИЦ онкологии им. Н. Н. Петрова» Минздрава России; Европейский Университет в Санкт-Петербурге
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Yu. V. Raskina
Европейский Университет в Санкт-Петербурге
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
O. V. Smirnova
ФГБУ «НМИЦ онкологии им. Н. Н. Петрова» Минздрава России
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
A. M. Belyaev
ФГБУ «НМИЦ онкологии им. Н. Н. Петрова» Минздрава России
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
S. F. Bagnenko
ФГБОУВО «ПСПбГМУ им. акад. И. П. Павлова» Минздрава России
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Каприн А.Д., Старинский В.В., Шахзадова А.О. Злокачественные новообразования в России в 2019 году (заболеваемость и смертность). Москва: МНИОИ им. П. А. Герцена – филиал ФГБУ «НМИЦ радиологии» Минздрава, 2020. – 252 p.
2. Барчук А.А., Арсеньев А.И., Беляев А.М., Гомболевский В.А., Нефедова А.В., Канаев С.В. et al. Эффективность скрининга онкологических заболеваний. Вопросы Онкологии. 2017; 63(4):557–67.
3. Hakama M., Auvinen A. Cancer Screening. In: International Encyclopedia of Public Health [Internet]. Elsevier, 2008. – P. 464–80. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/B9780123739605002665
4. Всемирная организация здравоохранения. Руководство по ранней диагностике рака [Guide to cancer early diagnosis] [Internet]. Женева: Всемирная организация здравоохранения, 2018 [cited 2021 Feb 14]. Available from: http://www.who.int/cancer/publications/cancer_early_diagnosis/ru/
5. Arbyn M., Anttila A., Jordan J., Ronco G., Schenck U., Segnan N. et al. European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Cervical Cancer Screening. Second Edition – Summary Document. Ann Oncol. 2010 Mar 1;21(3):448–58.
6. Cancer CPA. Quality Determinants of Breast Cancer Screening with Mammography in Canada. 2013;1–56.
7. Schröder F.H., Hugosson J., Roobol M.J., Tammela T.L.J., Ciatto S., Nelen V. et al. Screening and prostate- cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360(13):1320–8.
8. Auvinen A., Rannikko A., Taari K., Kujala P., Mirtti T., Kenttämies A. et al. A randomized trial of early detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (ProScreen): study design and rationale. Eur J Epidemiol. 2017;32(6):521–7.
9. De Koning H.J., van der Aalst C.M., de Jong P.A., Scholten E.T., Nackaerts K., Heuvelmans M.A. et al. Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Volume CT Screening in a Randomized Trial. N Engl J Med. 2020 Feb 6;382(6):503–13.
10. Team TNLSTR. Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Low-Dose Computed Tomographic Screening. 2011;1–15.
11. Von Karsa L., Arbyn M., De Vuyst H., Dillner J. European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening. Summary of the supplements on HPV screening and vaccination. Papillomavirus Res. 2015;1:22–31.
12. Ronco G., Dillner J., Elfström K.M., Tunesi S., Snijders P.J.F., Arbyn M. et al. Efficacy of HPV-based screening for prevention of invasive cervical cancer: follow-up of four European randomised controlled trials. Lancet Lond Engl. 2014;383(9916):524–32.
13. Kyrgiou M., Koliopoulos G., Martin-Hirsch P., Arbyn M., Prendiville W., Paraskevaidis E. Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatment for intraepithelial or early invasive cervical lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Lond Engl. 2006;367(9509):489–98.
14. Anttila A., von Karsa L., Aasmaa A., Fender M., Patnick J., Rebolj M. et al. Cervical cancer screening policies and coverage in Europe. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(15):2649–58.
15. De Kok IMCM, van Rosmalen J., Dillner J., Arbyn M., Sasieni P., Iftner T. et al. Primary screening for human papillomavirus compared with cytology screening for cervical cancer in European settings: cost effectiveness analysis based on a Dutch microsimulation model. BMJ. 2012; 344: e670.
16. Basu P., Ponti A., Anttila A., Ronco G., Senore C., Vale D.B. et al. Status of implementation and organization of cancer screening in The European Union Member States-Summary results from the second European screening report. Int J Cancer. 2018; 142(1):44–56.
17. Nelson H.D., Fu R., Cantor A., Pappas M., Daeges M., Humphrey L. Effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis to Update the 2009 U. S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Ann Intern Med. 2016;1–20.
18. Perry N., Broeders M., de Wolf C., Törnberg S., Holland R., Von Karsa L. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition–summary document. [Internet]. Oxford University Press; 2008. Available from: http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/doi/10.1093/annonc/mdm481
19. Basu P., Zhang L., Hariprasad R., Carvalho A., Barchuk A. A pragmatic approach to tackle the rising burden of breast cancer through prevention & early detection in countries ‘in transition’. Indian J Med Res. 2020;152(4):343.
20. Sarkeala T., Heinävaara S., Anttila A. Organised mammography screening reduces breast cancer mortality: a cohort study from Finland. Int J Cancer. 2008;122(3):614–9.
21. Bibbins-Domingo K., Grossman D.C., Curry S.J., Davidson K.W., Epling J.W., Garcia FAR et al. Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2016; 315(23):2564–75.
22. Randel K.R., Schult A.L., Botteri E., Hoff G., Bretthauer M., Ursin G. et al. Colorectal Cancer Screening With Repeated Fecal Immunochemical Test Versus Sigmoidoscopy: Baseline Results From a Randomized Trial. Gastroenterology. 2020 Nov; S0016508520354408.
23. Screening ECC. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis: overview and introduction to the full supplement publication. Ann Oncol [Internet]. 2013; Available from: https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/html/10.1055/s‑0032–1325997
24. Lee J.K., Liles E.G., Bent S., Levin T.R., Corley D.A. Accuracy of Fecal Immunochemical Tests for Colorectal Cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(3):171‑181‑35.
25. Vuik F.E., Nieuwenburg S.A., Bardou M., Lansdorp-Vogelaar I., Dinis-Ribeiro M., Bento M.J. et al. Increasing incidence of colorectal cancer in young adults in Europe over the last 25 years. Gut. 2019 Oct;68(10):1820–6.
26. Siegel R.L., Fedewa S.A., Anderson W.F., Miller K.D., Ma J., Rosenberg P.S. et al. Colorectal Cancer Incidence Patterns in the United States, 1974–2013. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017;109(8):7.
27. Gavin D.R., Valori R.M., Anderson J.T., Donnelly M.T., Williams J.G., Swarbrick E.T. The national colonoscopy audit: a nationwide assessment of the quality and safety of colonoscopy in the UK. Gut. 2013;62(2):242–9.
28. Shiroiwa T., Sung Y-K., Fukuda T., Lang H-C., Bae S-C., Tsutani K. International survey on willingness-to-pay (WTP) for one additional QALY gained: what is the threshold of cost effectiveness? Health Econ. 2010 Apr;19(4):422–37.
29. Marseille E., Larson B., Kazi D.S., Kahn J.G., Rosen S. Thresholds for the cost–effectiveness of interventions: alternative approaches. Bull World Health Organ. 2015 Feb 1; 93(2):118–24.
30. Bertram M.Y., Lauer J.A., de Joncheere K., Edejer T., Hutubessy R., Kieny M-P. et al. Cost–effectiveness thresholds: pros and cons. Bull World Health Organ. 2016 Dec 1;94(12):925–30.
31. Barchuk A., Bespalov A., Huhtala H., Chimed T., Belyaev A., Moore M. et al. Productivity losses associated with premature mortality due to cancer in Russia: A population-wide study covering 2001–2030. Scand J Public Health. 2019 Jul; 47(5):482–91.
32. Oken M.M., Hocking W.G., Kvale P.A., Andriole G.L., Buys S.S., Church T.R. et al. Screening by chest radiograph and lung cancer mortality: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) randomized trial. JAMA. 2011;306(17):1865–73.
33. Knudsen A.B., McMahon P.M., Gazelle G.S. Use of Modeling to Evaluate the Cost-Effectiveness of Cancer Screening Programs. J Clin Oncol. 2007 Jan 10;25(2):203–8.
34. Van den Akker-van Marle M.E. Cost-Effectiveness of Cervical Cancer Screening: Comparison of Screening Policies. CancerSpectrum Knowl Environ. 2002 Feb 6; 94(3):193–204.
35. Bos A.B., Rebolj M., Habbema JDF, van Ballegooijen M. Nonattendance is still the main limitation for the effectiveness of screening for cervical cancer in the Netherlands. Int J Cancer. 2006 Nov 15;119(10):2372–5.
36. Mezei A.K., Armstrong H.L., Pedersen H.N., Campos NG, Mitchell SM, Sekikubo M. et al. Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening methods in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review: Cervical cancer in LMICs. Int J Cancer. 2017 Aug 1;141(3):437–46.
37. Lansdorp-Vogelaar I., Knudsen A.B., Brenner H. Cost-effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening. Epidemiol Rev. 2011 Jul; 33(1):88–100.
Review
For citations:
Barchuk A.A., Raskina Yu.V., Smirnova O.V., Belyaev A.M., Bagnenko S.F. Cancer screening at the level of state programs: review, recommendations and management. Public Health. 2021;1(1):19-31. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21045/2782-1676-2021-1-1-19-31
Views:
470
Email this article 