Participation in faecal immunochemical testing-based colorectal cancer screening programmes in the northwest of Europe

Objective: This study compared the participation in four faecal immunochemical testing-based screening programmes for colorectal cancer in Flanders, France, Basque country and the Netherlands, to identify factors to further optimize faecal immunochemical testing programmes. Method: Background information and data on performance indicators were collected and compared for the four programmes. Results: Invitation method, reminders, funding, faecal immunochemical testing cut-off and follow-up after positive faecal immunochemical testing differed in the four programmes. In France, only an invitation letter is sent by mail, while the sample kit must be collected from the general practitioner. In the other programmes, an invitation letter including the sample kit is sent by mail. Participation rates vary substantially according to the method of invitation, with the highest participation rates in the Netherlands (73.0%) and Basque country (72.4%), followed by Flanders (54.5%) and France (28.6%). Basque country (92.8%) a

CanScreen5, a global repository for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening programs

The CanScreen5 project is a global cancer screening data repository that aims to report the status and performance of breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening programs using a harmonized set of criteria and indicators. Data collected mainly from the Ministry of Health in each country underwent quality validation and ultimately became publicly available through a Web-based portal. Until September 2022, 84 participating countries reported data for breast (n = 57), cervical (n = 75) or colorectal (n = 51) cancer screening programs in the repository. Substantial heterogeneity was observed regarding program organization and performance. Reported screening coverage ranged from 1.7% (Bangladesh) to 85.5% (England, United Kingdom) for breast cancer, from 2.1% (Côte d’Ivoire) to 86.3% (Sweden) for cervical cancer, and from 0.6% (Hungary) to 64.5% (the Netherlands) for colorectal cancer screening programs. Large variability was observed regarding compliance to further assessment of screening programs and detection rates reported for precancers and cancers. A concern is lack of data to estimate performance indicators across the screening continuum. This underscores the need for programs to incorporate quality assurance protocols supported by robust information systems. Program organization requires improvement in resource-limited settings, where screening is likely to be resource-stratified and tailored to country-specific situations.</p

Tumour characteristics of screen-detected and interval cancers in the Flemish Breast Cancer Screening Programme : a mammographic breast density study

Objective: The objective is to investigate tumour prognostic factors versus breast density in screen-detected cancers and interval cancers. The results may highlight the need for more personalised screening protocols based on breast density in organized screening programmes.Study design: A retrospective study was performed of tumour characteristics of screen-detected cancers (n=468) and interval cancers (n=515) of 983 women who participated in the Flemish Breast Cancer Screening Programme in 2009-2010. Breast density was obtained from the screening programme data. Information on nodal invasion and histological grading was taken from the Belgian Cancer Registry. Tumour size and proliferation and receptor expression status were retrieved from pathology reports. The differences in tumour characteristics between screen-detected and interval cancers as well as the variation in these variables with breast density in both groups were studied by logistic regression.Results: A comparison of tumour characteristics between screen-detected cancers and interval cancers systematically showed features of more aggressive tumours in interval cancers: larger tumour size, nodal invasion, grade 3 tumours, and hormone receptor negative phenotype (p < 0.05). The analysis of tumour characteristics versus breast density in screen-detected cancers showed higher numbers of aggressive grade 3 tumours in low density breasts and of the luminal A subtype with good prognosis in high-density breasts (p < 0.05). This analysis for interval cancers highlights a high proportion of the difficult-to-treat triple-negative subtype in low-density breasts compared with high-density breasts. In conclusion, the study data support arguments against changes in breast cancer screening programmes with prolongation of screening intervals in low-density breasts