European Screening Programmes Research Articles

Drivers determining TB disease screening yield in four European screening programmes: a comparative analysis.

The WHO End-TB Strategy emphasises screening for early diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB) in high-risk groups, including migrants. We analysed key drivers of TB yield differences in four large migrant TB screening programmes to inform TB control planning and feasibility of a European approach. We pooled individual TB screening episode data from Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the UK and analysed predictors and interactions for TB case yield using multivariable logistic regression models. Between 2005-2018 in 2,302,260 screening episodes among 2,107,016 migrants to four countries; the programmes identified 1,658 TB cases (yield 72.0 per 100,000; 95% confidence interval, CI68.6-75.6). In logistic regression analysis, we found associations between TB screening yield and age (>55 years odds ratio, OR2.91, CI2.24-3.78), being an asylum seeker (OR3.19, CI1.03-9.83) or on a settlement visa (OR1.78, CI1.57-2.01), close TB contact (OR12.25, 11.73-12.79), and higher TB incidence in the country of origin (CoO). We demonstrated interactions between migrant typology and age, as well as CoO. For asylum seekers, the elevated TB risk remained similar above CoO incidence thresholds of 100 per 100,000. Key determinants of TB yield included close contact, increasing age, incidence in CoO and specific migrant groups including asylum seekers and refugees. For most migrants such as UK students and workers, TB yield significantly increased with levels of incidence in CoO. The high, CoO-independent TB risk in asylum seekers above a 100 per 100,000 threshold could reflect higher transmission and reactivation risk of migration routes; with implications for selecting populations for TB screening.

High prevalence of abdominal aortic aneurysm in older men with cerebrovascular disease: Evaluation of a local screening program.

Patients with cerebrovascular disease may suffer from other vascular morbidities, such as abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Previously, a high prevalence of AAA has been demonstrated in men 60 years of age and older who have experienced TIA or stroke. This report evaluates the results of a decade's operation of a local screening program for AAA in this selected neurologic population. Men aged ≥60 years and admitted to the neurology ward of a community-based hospital in the Netherlands from 2006 to 2017 with a diagnosis of TIA or stroke were selected for screening. The diameter of the abdominal aorta was assessed by abdominal ultrasonography. Patients with detected AAA were referred for evaluation by a vascular surgeon. AAA was detected in 72 of 1,035 screened patients (6.9%). AAAs with a diameter of 3.0-3.9 cm accounted for 61.1% of the total aneurysms found; AAAs with a diameter of 4.0-5.4 cm accounted for 20.8% of the total; and large aneurysms with a diameter of ≥5.5 cm accounted for 18.1% of all aneurysms discovered. A total of 18 patients (1.7%) underwent elective aneurysm repair. The detection rate of AAA in older men with cerebrovascular disease was roughly 5-fold the detection rate in known European screening programs in older men from the general population. The proportion of large AAAs (≥5.5 cm) was also substantially higher. These findings reveal a previously unknown co-morbidity in patients with cerebrovascular disease and may be helpful for cardiovascular management of this large group of neurologic patients. Current and future AAA screening programs may also benefit from this knowledge.

Implementing organized colorectal cancer screening programs in Europe—protocol for a systematic review of determinants and strategies

BackgroundWith a high mortality of 12.6% of all cancer cases, colorectal cancer (CRC) accounts for substantial burden of disease in Europe. In the past decade, more and more countries have introduced organized colorectal cancer screening programs, making systematic screening available to entire segments of a population, typically based on routine stool tests and/or colonoscopy. While the effectiveness of organized screening in reducing CRC incidence and mortality has been confirmed, studies continuously report persistent program implementation challenges. This systematic review will synthesize the literature on organized CRC screening programs. Its aim is to understand what is currently known about the barriers and facilitators that influence the implementation of these programs and about the implementation strategies used to navigate these determinants.MethodsA systematic review of primary studies of any research design will be conducted. CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Scopus will be searched. Websites of (non-)government health care organizations and websites of organizations affiliated with authors of included studies will be screened for unpublished evaluation reports. Existing organized CRC screening programs will be contacted with a request to share program-specific grey literature. Two researchers will independently screen each publication in two rounds for eligibility. Included studies will focus on adult populations involved in the implementation of organized CRC screening programs and contain information about implementation determinants/ strategies. Publications will be assessed for their risk of bias. Data extraction will include study aim, design, location, setting, sample, methods, and measures; program characteristics; implementation stage, framework, determinants, strategies, and outcomes; and service and other outcome information. Findings will be synthesized narratively using the three stages of thematic synthesis.DiscussionWith its sole focus on the implementation of organized CRC screening programs, this review will help to fill a central knowledge gap in the literature on colorectal cancer screening. Its findings can inform the decision-making in policy and practice needed to prioritize resources for establishing new and maintaining existing programs in the future.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO (CRD42022306580).

Faecal haemoglobin concentration predicts all-cause mortality

BackgroundPopulation-based screening for colorectal cancer by a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) is recommended by the European Union. Detectable faecal haemoglobin can indicate colorectal neoplasia as well as other conditions. A positive FIT predicts an increased risk of death from colorectal cancer but might also predict an increased risk of all-cause mortality. MethodsA cohort of screening participants was followed using the Danish National Register of Causes of Death. Data were retrieved from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Screening Database supplemented with FIT concentrations. Colorectal cancer specific and all-cause mortality were compared between FIT concentration groups using multivariate cox proportional hazards regression models. FindingsIn 444,910 Danes invited for the screening program, 25,234 (5·7%) died during a mean follow-up of 56·5 months. Colorectal cancer caused 1120 deaths. The risk of colorectal cancer death increased with the increasing FIT concentration. The hazard ratios ranged from 2·6 to 25·9 compared to individuals with FIT concentrations <4 μg hb/g faeces. Causes other than colorectal cancer caused 24,114 deaths. The risk of all-cause death increased with the increasing FIT concentration, with the hazard ratios ranging from 1·6 to 5·3 compared to individuals with FIT concentrations <4 μg hb/g faeces. InterpretationThe risk of colorectal cancer mortality increased with the increasing FIT concentrations even for FIT concentrations considered negative in all European screening programs. The risk of all-cause mortality was also increased for individuals with detectable faecal blood. For colorectal cancer specific mortality and all-cause mortality, the risk was increased at the FIT concentrations as low as 4–9 μg hb/g faeces. FundingThe study was funded by the Odense University Hospital grants A3610 and A2359.

The cost-effectiveness of different visual acuity screening strategies in three European countries: A microsimulation study

Childhood vision screening programmes in Europe differ by age, frequency and location at which the child is screened, and by the professional who performs the test. The aim of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness for three countries with different health care structures.We developed a microsimulation model of amblyopia. The natural history parameters were calibrated to a Dutch observational study. Sensitivity, specificity, attendance, lost to follow-up and costs in the three countries were based on the EUSCREEN Survey. Quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated using assumed utility loss for unilateral persistent amblyopia (1%) and bilateral visual impairment (8%). We calculated the cost-effectiveness of screening (with 3.5% annual discount) by visual acuity measurement at age 5 years or 4 and 5 years in the Netherlands by nurses in child healthcare centres, in England and Wales by orthoptists in schools and in Romania by urban kindergarten nurses. We compared screening at various ages and with various frequencies.Assuming an amblyopia prevalence of 36 per 1,000 children, the model predicted that 7.2 cases of persistent amblyopia were prevented in the Netherlands, 6.6 in England and Wales and 4.5 in Romania. The cost-effectiveness was €24,159, €19,981 and €23,589, per QALY gained respectively, compared with no screening. Costs/QALY was influenced most by assumed utility loss of unilateral persistent amblyopia. For all three countries, screening at age 5, or age 4 and 5 years were optimal.Despite differences in health care structure, vision screening by visual acuity measurement seemed cost-effective in all three countries.

Proportion and stage distribution of screen-detected and non-screen-detected colorectal cancer in nine European countries: an international, population-based study

The effects of recently implemented colorectal cancer screening programmes in Europe on colorectal cancer mortality will take several years to be fully known. We aimed to analyse the characteristics and parameters of screening programmes, proportions of colorectal cancers detected through screening, and stage distribution in screen-detected and non-screen-detected colorectal cancers to provide a timely assessment of the potential effects of screening programmes in several European countries. We conducted this population-based study in nine European countries for which data on mode of detection were available (Belgium, Denmark, England, France, Italy, Ireland, the Netherlands, Slovenia, and Spain). Data from 16 population-based cancer registries were included. Patients were included if they were diagnosed with colorectal cancer from the year that organised colorectal cancer screening programmes were implemented in each country until the latest year with available data at the time of analysis, and if their age at diagnosis fell within the age groups targeted by the programmes. Data collected included sex, age at diagnosis, date of diagnosis, topography, morphology, clinical and pathological TNM information based on the edition in place at time of diagnosis, and mode of detection (ie, screen detected or non-screen detected). If stage information was not available, patients were not included in stage-specific analyses. The primary outcome was proportion and stage distribution of screen-detected versus non-screen detected colorectal cancers. 228 667 colorectal cancer cases were included in the analyses. Proportions of screen-detected cancers varied widely across countries and regions. The highest proportions (40-60%) were found in Slovenia and the Basque Country in Spain, where FIT-based programmes were fully rolled out, and participation rates were higher than 50%. A similar proportion of screen-detected cancers was also found for the Netherlands in 2015, where participation was over 70%, even though the programme had not yet been fully rolled out to all age groups. In most other countries and regions, proportions of screen-detected cancers were below 30%. Compared with non-screen-detected cancers, screen-detected cancers were much more often found in the distal colon (range 34·5-51·1% screen detected vs 26·4-35·7% non-screen detected) and less often in the proximal colon (19·5-29·9% screen detected vs 24·9-32·8% non-screen detected) p≤0·02 for each country, more often at stage I (35·7-52·7% screen detected vs 13·2-24·9% non-screen detected), and less often at stage IV (5·8-12·5% screen detected vs 22·5-31·9% non-screen detected) p<0·0001 for each country. The proportion of colorectal cancer cases detected by screening varied widely between countries. However, in all countries, screen-detected cancers had a more favourable stage distribution than cancers detected otherwise. There is still much need and scope for improving early detection of cancer across all segments of the colorectum, and particularly in the proximal colon and rectum. Deutsche Krebshilfe.

Cost-effectiveness studies of HPV self-sampling: A systematic review

HPV self-sampling (HPV-SS) can increase cervical cancer screening participation by addressing barriers in high- and low- and middle-income settings. Successful implementation of HPV-SS programs will depend on understanding potential costs and health effects. Our objectives were to summarize the methods and results of published HPV-SS cost and cost-effectiveness studies, present implications of these results for HPV-SS program implementation, and identify knowledge gaps. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. One reviewer searched online databases for articles published through June 12, 2019, identified eligible studies, and extracted data; a second reviewer checked extracted data for accuracy. Eligible studies used an economic model to compare HPV-SS outreach strategies to standard-of-care tests. Of 16 eligible studies, 14 reported HPV-SS could be a cost-effective strategy. Studies differed in model type, HPV-SS delivery methods, triage strategies for positive results, and target populations. Most (9/16) modeled HPV-SS in European screening programs, 6/16 targeted women who were underscreened for cervical cancer, and 5/16 modeled HPV-SS in low- and middle-income countries. The most commonly identified driver of HPV-SS cost-effectiveness was the level of increase in cervical cancer screening attendance. Lower HPV-SS material and testing costs, higher sensitivity to detect cervical precancer, and longer duration of underscreening among HPV-SS users were also associated with increased cost-effectiveness. Future HPV-SS models in high-income settings should explore the effect of widespread vaccination and new triage strategies such as partial HPV genotyping. Knowledge gaps remain about the cost-effectiveness of HPV-SS in low- and middle-income settings.

Lung cancer mortality reduction by LDCT screening-Results from the randomized German LUSI trial.

In 2011, the U.S. National Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NLST) reported a 20% reduction of lung cancer mortality after regular screening by low-dose computed tomography (LDCT), as compared to X-ray screening. The introduction of lung cancer screening programs in Europe awaits confirmation of these first findings from European trials that started in parallel with the NLST. The German Lung cancer Screening Intervention (LUSI) is a randomized trial among 4,052 long-term smokers, 50-69 years of age, recruited from the general population, comparing five annual rounds of LDCT screening (screening arm; n = 2,029 participants) with a control arm (n = 2,023) followed by annual postal questionnaire inquiries. Data on lung cancer incidence and mortality and vital status were collected from hospitals or office-based physicians, cancer registries, population registers and health offices. Over an average observation time of 8.8 years after randomization, the hazard ratio for lung cancer mortality was 0.74 (95% CI: 0.46-1.19; p = 0.21) among men and women combined. Modeling by sex, however showed a statistically significant reduction in lung cancer mortality among women (HR = 0.31 [95% CI: 0.10-0.96], p = 0.04), but not among men (HR = 0.94 [95% CI: 0.54-1.61], p = 0.81) screened by LDCT (pheterogeneity = 0.09). Findings from LUSI are in line with those from other trials, including NLST, that suggest a stronger reduction of lung cancer mortality after LDCT screening among women as compared to men. This heterogeneity could be the result of different relative counts of lung tumor subtypes occurring in men and women.

Key indicators of organized cancer screening programs: Results from a Delphi study.

ObjectiveTo maximize benefits and reduce potential harms of organized cancer screening programs in Europe, monitoring, quality assurance, and evaluation of long-term impact are required. We aimed to identify the most important indicators to be collected and reported. The study was designed to establish a consensus within a European-level working group and suggest a manageable list of key indicators.MethodsWe conducted a Delphi study among policymakers, researchers, and program coordinators who were experts in breast, cervical, or colorectal cancer screening. Study participants evaluated the importance of screening indicators on a 5-point Likert scale.ResultsThe top 10 indicators by study participants were interval cancer rate, detection rate, screening attendance, screening coverage, cancer incidence, cause-specific mortality, proportion of persons attending further assessment after a positive screen test result, proportion of persons attending a treatment after diagnosis, invitation coverage, and distribution of cancers by mode of detection. Performance indicators were generally considered more important than outcome indicators. Subgroup analyses by cancer types showed similar results, and only cervical cancer screening experts had slightly different preferences. Subgroup analyses by experts’ roles indicated that policymakers found different indicators important compared with researchers or program coordinators, probably because of their different point of view on screening.ConclusionThe implication of our priority ranking is twofold: it serves as an initial guidance for countries that have not yet established a system to collect data, and as a checklist for those where data collection is already established, to assess the comprehensiveness of their system.

An Update on the European Lung Cancer Screening Trials and Comparison of Lung Cancer Screening Recommendations in Europe.

While lung cancer screening has been implemented in the United States, it is still under consideration in Europe. So far, lung cancer screening trials in Europe were not able to replicate the results of the National Lung Screening Trial, but they do show a stage shift in the lung cancers that were detected. While eagerly awaiting the final result of the only lung cancer screening trial with sufficient statistical power, the NELSON trial, a number of European countries and medical societies have published recommendations for lung cancer screening using computed tomography. However, there is still a debate with regard to the design of future lung cancer screening programs in Europe. This review summarizes the latest evidence of European lung cancer screening trials and gives an overview of the essence of recommendations from the different European medical societies and countries.

Long-term risk of screen-detected and interval breast cancer after false-positive results at mammography screening: joint analysis of three national cohorts

BackgroundWe assessed the long-term risk of screen-detected and interval breast cancer in women with a first or second false-positive screening result.MethodsJoint analysis had been performed using individual-level data from three population-based screening programs in Europe (Copenhagen in Denmark, Norway, and Spain). Overall, 75,513 screened women aged 50–69 years from Denmark (1991–2010), 556,640 from Norway (1996–2008), and 517,314 from Spain (1994–2010) were included. We used partly conditional Cox hazards models to assess the association between false-positive results and the risk of subsequent screen-detected and interval cancer.ResultsDuring follow-up, 1,149,467 women underwent 3,510,450 screening exams, and 10,623 screen-detected and 5700 interval cancers were diagnosed. Compared to women with negative tests, those with false-positive results had a two-fold risk of screen-detected (HR = 2.04, 95% CI: 1.93–2.16) and interval cancer (HR = 2.18, 95% CI: 2.02–2.34). Women with a second false-positive result had over a four-fold risk of screen-detected and interval cancer (HR = 4.71, 95% CI: 3.81–5.83 and HR = 4.22, 95% CI: 3.27–5.46, respectively). Women remained at an elevated risk for 12 years after the false-positive result.ConclusionsWomen with prior false-positive results had an increased risk of screen-detected and interval cancer for over a decade. This information should be considered to design personalised screening strategies based on individual risk.

Cervical Cancer Screening Programs in Europe: The Transition Towards HPV Vaccination and Population-Based HPV Testing.

Cervical cancer is the fourth most frequently occurring cancer in women around the world and can affect them during their reproductive years. Since the development of the Papanicolaou (Pap) test, screening has been essential in identifying cervical cancer at a treatable stage. With the identification of the human papillomavirus (HPV) as the causative agent of essentially all cervical cancer cases, HPV molecular screening tests and HPV vaccines for primary prevention against the virus have been developed. Accordingly, comparative studies were designed to assess the performance of cervical cancer screening methods in order to devise the best screening strategy possible. This review critically assesses the current cervical cancer screening methods as well as the implementation of HPV vaccination in Europe. The most recent European Guidelines and recommendations for organized population-based programs with HPV testing as the primary screening method are also presented. Lastly, the current landscape of cervical cancer screening programs is assessed for both European Union member states and some associated countries, in regard to the transition towards population-based screening programs with primary HPV testing.

The narrow path to organized LDCT lung cancer screening programs in Europe.

A recent position statement by a group of European experts reviewed the current evidence for low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening, based on the outcomes and screening performance of the published randomized trials and identified actions needed for eventual future implementation. After the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) outcome publication, guidelines changed in USA and Canada, but there are still problems in real-world screening practice. In Europe any decision was postponed to the publication of the European randomized trial outcomes and recommendations continue to discourage screening for lung cancer in all member countries. The NELSON randomized controlled trial (RCT), the largest one in Europe, outcome results are still waited, whereas the MILD, DANTE, DLSCT and ITALUNG (all with small sample size) RCTs have published mortality and incidence data with adequate follow up. The implementation of an organized screening in Europe is conditioned by a health technology assessment process at European level. According with the European policy, confirmed in the recent European Cancer Code [2015], screening is transferred in current public-health practice according with evidence-based recommendations and based on organized, usually population-based, programs. Guidelines, standard indicators of performance, training of dedicated radiologists and professionals and a comprehensive quality assurance system is requested in European countries to implement nationally a public health screening program. Waiting the NELSON randomized trial results, key issues as modality for selection of high risk subjects and recruitment, integration of screening and smoking cessation, optimal screening regimen and related research on biomarkers should be assessed, discussed and reviewed. Informed decision making, promotion of primary prevention and integration of screening and smoking cessation are all essential components of a comprehensive risk reduction policy. The path to an Evidence-based screening practice is narrow and, in the absence of a well-established decision-making process, the risk of a spontaneous, uncontrolled use of LDCT screening or, on the other side, an oversight of the screening opportunity is high.

The influence of total hysterectomy in a cervical cancer screening population: a register-based cross-sectional study

BackgroundHigh coverage of a screening program is essential to program success. Many European screening programs cover only 10–80% of their target population. A possible explanation for the low coverage may be that some women in the screening population have had a total hysterectomy, thus they are not at risk of cervical cancer. The aim of this study was to identify the prevalence of hysterectomy in the target population of the Danish National Cervical Cancer Screening Program (NCCSP) and to recalculate coverage after excluding women with total hysterectomy. Furthermore, to analyze the association between hysterectomy and sociodemographic factors within the screening population.MethodsA population-based cross-sectional study using register data on all women in the target population of the NCCSP on January 12, 2012 (women born January 12, 1947, to January 12, 1986).The total coverage included women with hysterectomy in the target population whereas the recalculated coverage was calculated excluding women with total hysterectomy. To test the differences between the total coverage and the recalculated coverage, a two-sample z-test between the proportion of covered hysterectomized women and the proportion of covered non-hysterectomised women were used. A logistic regression model adjusted for age and sociodemographic characteristics was used to analyze the association between sociodemographic factors and total hysterectomy.ResultsThe coverage among women aged 26–49 years and 55–64 years were 77.4% and 72.7%, respectively. The recalculated coverage was 78.2% (26–49 years) and 79.4% (55–64 years). Recalculating the coverage did not result in coverage higher than 82.7% at any age. The effect of excluding women with total hysterectomy increased with age, reaching its maximum of 8 % points for the oldest women. Women with higher socioeconomic status (higher education and higher disposable income) had lower odds of being hysterectomized compared to other women. Also, immigrants and descendants had lower odds of being hysterectomized compared to ethnic Danes.ConclusionsExcluding women with total hysterectomy only partly explained the low coverage of the NCCSP. Thus, initiatives must be made to improve acceptability of and accessibility to the NCCSP, especially in the youngest and the oldest women.

Quasi‐Experimental Evidence on the Effects of Health Information on Preventive Behaviour in Europe

AbstractWe investigate the effect of information on preventive decisions in a quasi‐experimental setting arising from the implementation of local breast cancer screening programmes in Europe. To identify the causal effect of invitation on preventive uptake, we link administrative public data on regional screening policies to individual data from the Survey of Health Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) and exploit regional variation in the availability of screening policies and in age eligibility criteria. We find home invitation increases mammography uptakes by around 24%. Significant effects are found when at least 50% of the population is reached by the invitation letter. The stock of health information and the ability to process the information received seem to play a significant role, as the effects of invitation are higher among low educated and lower among cognitively impaired women.

ESR/ERS white paper on lung cancer screening.

Lung cancer is the most frequently fatal cancer, with poor survival once the disease is advanced. Annual low-dose computed tomography has shown a survival benefit in screening individuals at high risk for lung cancer. Based on the available evidence, the European Society of Radiology and the European Respiratory Society recommend lung cancer screening in comprehensive, quality-assured, longitudinal programmes within a clinical trial or in routine clinical practice at certified multidisciplinary medical centres. Minimum requirements include: standardised operating procedures for low-dose image acquisition, computer-assisted nodule evaluation, and positive screening results and their management; inclusion/exclusion criteria; expectation management; and smoking cessation programmes. Further refinements are recommended to increase quality, outcome and cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening: inclusion of risk models, reduction of effective radiation dose, computer-assisted volumetric measurements and assessment of comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and vascular calcification). All these requirements should be adjusted to the regional infrastructure and healthcare system, in order to exactly define eligibility using a risk model, nodule management and a quality assurance plan. The establishment of a central registry, including a biobank and an image bank, and preferably on a European level, is strongly encouraged.Key points• Lung cancer screening using low dose computed tomography reduces mortality. • Leading US medical societies recommend large scale screening for high-risk individuals. • There are no lung cancer screening recommendations or reimbursed screening programmes in Europe as of yet. • The European Society of Radiology and the European Respiratory Society recommend lung cancer screening within a clinical trial or in routine clinical practice at certified multidisciplinary medical centres. • High risk, eligible individuals should be enrolled in comprehensive, quality-controlled longitudinal programmes.

Cervical cancer screening in Europe: Quality assurance and organisation of programmes

BackgroundCervical screening programmes have reduced cervical cancer incidence and mortality but the level of success is highly variable between countries. Organisation of programmes is essential for equity and cost-effectiveness. However, there are differences in effectiveness, also among organised programmes. In order to identify the key organisational components that determine effectiveness, we performed a Europe-wide survey on the current status of organisation and organised quality assurance (QA) measures in cervical cancer prevention programmes, as well as organisation-associated costs. MethodsA comprehensive questionnaire was developed through systematic review of literature and existing guidelines. The survey was sent to programme organisers, Ministries of Health and experts in 34 European Union (EU) and European Free Trade Agreement (EFTA) countries. Detailed aspects of programme organisation, quality assurance, monitoring, evaluation and corresponding line-item costs were recorded. Documentation of programme guidelines, protocols and publications was requested. ResultsTwenty-nine of 34 countries responded. The results showed that organised efforts for QA, monitoring and evaluation were carried out to a differing extent and were not standardised, making it difficult to compare the cost-effectiveness of organisation and QA strategies. Most countries found it hard to estimate the costs associated with launching and operating the organised programme. ConclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first questionnaire to request detailed information on the actual organisation and QA of programmes. The results of this survey can be used as a basis for further development of standardised guidelines on organisation and QA of cervical cancer screening programmes in Europe.

Inventory of current EU paediatric vision and hearing screening programmes.

To examine the diversity in paediatric vision and hearing screening programmes in Europe. Themes for comparison of screening programmes derived from literature were used to compile three questionnaires on vision, hearing, and public health screening. Tests used, professions involved, age, and frequency of testing seem to influence sensitivity, specificity, and costs most. Questionnaires were sent to ophthalmologists, orthoptists, otolaryngologists, and audiologists involved in paediatric screening in all EU full-member, candidate, and associate states. Answers were cross-checked. Thirty-nine countries participated; 35 have a vision screening programme, 33 a nation-wide neonatal hearing screening programme. Visual acuity (VA) is measured in 35 countries, in 71% of these more than once. First measurement of VA varies from three to seven years of age, but is usually before age five. At age three and four, picture charts, including Lea Hyvarinen, are used most; in children over four, Tumbling-E and Snellen. As first hearing screening test, otoacoustic emission is used most in healthy neonates, and auditory brainstem response in premature newborns. The majority of hearing testing programmes are staged; children are referred after 1-4 abnormal tests. Vision screening is performed mostly by paediatricians, ophthalmologists, or nurses. Funding is mostly by health insurance or state. Coverage was reported as >95% in half of countries, but reporting was often not first-hand. Largest differences were found in VA charts used (12), professions involved in vision screening (10), number of hearing screening tests before referral (1-4), and funding sources (8).

Home-use faecal immunochemical testing: primary care diagnostic technology update.

#### Clinical Question What is the evidence base for home faecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer? A variety of home-use faecal occult blood testing (FOBt) kits remain commercially available to UK patients despite caution regarding their safety and accuracy. FOBt is a relatively non-invasive and inexpensive test. The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) and the majority of European screening programmes uses guaiac FOBt (gFOB). A Cochrane Review has shown that biennial population screening with card-based postal laboratory-analysed gFOB can reduce colorectal mortality by 15% (relative risk [RR] 0.85, confidence interval [CI] = 0.78 to 0.92) in people aged 45–74 years.1 Those who attend screening have a 25% reduction (RR 0.75, CI = 0.66 to 0.84) in their risk of death, but only 40% return all three BCSP gFOB kits, although involving GPs in screening increases uptake.1,2 Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) measures the globin component of human haemoglobin. Unlike gFOB, FIT does not require dietary restriction, is specific to lower gastrointestinal (GI) cancers as upper GI enzymes degrade human globin, and is less affected by concomitant medication use. FIT has started to replace gFOB in some regions (for example, the Czech Republic and Italy) and guidelines (for example, the US) given these gains in diagnostic accuracy. Home FIT kits are designed to obtain samples from multiple parts of a single stool and use immunochromatography to provide an immediate (qualitative) positive or negative result, avoiding the delay and costs associated with laboratory (quantitative) FIT and gFOB. Patients may present to primary care having used home bowel-testing kits, and so this report outlines the existing evidence detailing the potential accuracy and utility of the home FIT available to the adult consumer. Based on a search conducted in December 2013, Box 1 shows the CE approved FIT kits retailing to the UK …

Lung cancer screening: 360 degree review

The most compelling evidence supporting the use of low dose computed tomography in the screening of high risk populations for lung cancer was generated by the National Lung Cancer Screening Trial carried out in the United States by the National Cancer Institute and the American College of Radiology Imaging Network.[1] This trial was a randomized prospective study which included over 53,000 participants. The two arms consisted of patients who were randomized to low dose CT and those who received standard radiography. Data from the NLST demonstrated that screening reduced mortality by 20% in the CT arm. Other smaller studies carried out in Europe have reported no mortality benefit. However, these studies included a younger screening population and had a smaller number of participants and probably did not have the power to show a mortality benefit.[2] Major medical societies and US government agencies such as US Preventative Services Task Force and now the Center for Medicare Services have now recommended LDCT. These decisions not only recommend screening but require US insurance companies and Medicare in the US to provide reimbursement.[3] Some of the caveats of screening result from the limits of generalization of the NLST results based on risk groups and demographics. There are also potential harms and complications from the LDCT screening which include radiation exposure, over diagnosis, the use of invasive procedures for diagnosis and the high false positive rate. [1,4] Lung cancer screening could have a strong impact on health care in Europe where there are over 268,000 lung cancer deaths per annum. Screening could save thousands of lives. However, lung cancer screening is currently not reimbursed and there are no screening programs accessible through health care systems or health plans. Important factors for lung cancer screening in Europe include refinement of inclusion criteria and stratification of risks, modeling of cost effectiveness data, and inclusion of evidence from European trials. Implementation of screening programs in Europe will require a collaborative effort among professional specialties, societies, organizations, and additional trial data. The American College of Radiology has developed a reporting system for lung cancer screening designated “Lung Rads.” [5] It is a reporting system which is very similar to Bi-Rads that includes numeric categories. It associates CT findings with guideline based management decisions. LDCT findings are categorized from 1-4 according to the likelihood of malignancy. 1 and 2 are considered benign findings and 3 and 4 have a higher probability of malignancy. There are descriptions for each of the 4 categories plus an enumeration of findings. The categories include characterization of nodules including size and density (solid, part-solid, or non- solid ground glass). In addition to the categories and findings there are guidelines for management in each category with estimates of the probability of malignancy and the estimated population prevalence. Constructing a lung cancer screening program in your institution presents many challenges. (6) Stake holders include the hospital leadership, referral providers, a multidisciplinary team, and support staff. Patient and physician outreach and education are essential. Standard protocols should be developed for image acquisition. Ideally image review should be performed by radiologists experienced in chest CT and nodule detection. Imaging software that combines CAD and volumetric measurements is desirable. Findings should be recorded according to the lung imaging reporting and data system such as Lung Rads. Communication of results to both the patient and physician is important and such communication should be stratified according to urgency.