Review
doi: 10.1186/s40985-018-0080-0. eCollection 2018. Cancer screening recommendations: an international comparison of high income countriesAffiliations
AffiliationsItem in Clipboard
Review
Cancer screening recommendations: an international comparison of high income countriesMark H Ebell et al. Public Health Rev. 2018.
doi: 10.1186/s40985-018-0080-0. eCollection 2018. AffiliationsItem in Clipboard
AbstractBackground: Recommendations regarding cancer screening vary from country to country, and may also vary within countries depending on the organization making the recommendations. The goal of this study was to summarize the cancer screening recommendations from the 21 countries with the highest per capita spending on healthcare.
Main body: Cancer screening guidelines were identified for each country based on a review of the medical literature, internet searches, and contact with key informants in most countries. The highest level recommendation was identified for each country, in the order of national recommendation, cancer society recommendation, or medical specialty society recommendation. Breast cancer screening recommendations were generally consistent across countries, most commonly recommending mammography biennially from ages 50 to 69 or 70 years. In the USA, specialty societies generally offered more intensive screening recommendations. All countries also recommend cervical cancer screening, although there is some heterogeneity regarding the test (cytology or HPV or both) and the age of initiation and screening interval. Most countries recommend colorectal cancer screening using fecal immunochemical (FIT) testing, while only seven countries recommend general or selective screening for prostate cancer, and a similar number explicitly recommend against screening for prostate cancer. Screening for lung and skin cancer is only recommended by a few countries. Greater per capita healthcare expenditures are not associated with greater screening intensity, with the possible exception of prostate cancer.
Conclusions: Guidelines for cancer screening differ between countries, with areas of commonality but also clear differences. Recommendations have important commonalities for well-established cancer screening programs such as breast and cervical cancer, with greater variation between countries regarding prostate, colorectal, lung, and skin cancer screening. Ideally, recommendations should be made by a professionally diverse, independent panel of experts that make evidence-based recommendations regarding screening based on the benefits, harms, and available resources in that country's context.
Keywords: Breast cancer; Cancer screening; Cervical cancer; Colorectal cancer; Healthcare economics; Lung cancer; Overdiagnosis; Prostate cancer; Skin cancer.
Conflict of interest statementNot applicableNot applicableThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
FiguresFig. 1
This figure shows the relationship…
Fig. 1
This figure shows the relationship between per capita spending on healthcare with the…
Fig. 1This figure shows the relationship between per capita spending on healthcare with the number of lifetime screening tests recommended for a) breast cancer (mammography), b) cervical cancer (cytology or HPV), and c) colorectal cancer (FIT)
Similar articlesSankaranarayanan R. Sankaranarayanan R. Ann Glob Health. 2014 Sep-Oct;80(5):412-7. doi: 10.1016/j.aogh.2014.09.014. Ann Glob Health. 2014. PMID: 25512156 Review.
Medical Advisory Secretariat. Medical Advisory Secretariat. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2009;9(10):1-40. Epub 2009 Sep 1. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2009. PMID: 23074514 Free PMC article.
Medical Advisory Secretariat. Medical Advisory Secretariat. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2007;7(4):1-43. Epub 2007 Jun 1. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2007. PMID: 23074504 Free PMC article.
Moscicki AB, Flowers L, Huchko MJ, Long ME, MacLaughlin KL, Murphy J, Spiryda LB, Gold MA. Moscicki AB, et al. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2019 Apr;23(2):87-101. doi: 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000468. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2019. PMID: 30907775
Maver PJ, Poljak M. Maver PJ, et al. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020 May;26(5):579-583. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2019.09.006. Epub 2019 Sep 17. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020. PMID: 31539637 Review.
Poon PKM, Tam KW, Lam T, Luk AKC, Chu WCW, Cheung P, Wong SYS, Sung JJY. Poon PKM, et al. Front Oncol. 2023 Jan 5;12:1053698. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.1053698. eCollection 2022. Front Oncol. 2023. PMID: 36686831 Free PMC article.
Ho PJ, Ho WK, Khng AJ, Yeoh YS, Tan BK, Tan EY, Lim GH, Tan SM, Tan VKM, Yip CH, Mohd-Taib NA, Wong FY, Lim EH, Ngeow J, Chay WY, Leong LCH, Yong WS, Seah CM, Tang SW, Ng CWQ, Yan Z, Lee JA, Rahmat K, Islam T, Hassan T, Tai MC, Khor CC, Yuan JM, Koh WP, Sim X, Dunning AM, Bolla MK, Antoniou AC, Teo SH, Li J, Hartman M. Ho PJ, et al. BMC Med. 2022 Apr 26;20(1):150. doi: 10.1186/s12916-022-02334-z. BMC Med. 2022. PMID: 35468796 Free PMC article.
Marima R, Mbeje M, Hull R, Demetriou D, Mtshali N, Dlamini Z. Marima R, et al. Cancer Manag Res. 2022 Dec 28;14:3567-3579. doi: 10.2147/CMAR.S382903. eCollection 2022. Cancer Manag Res. 2022. PMID: 36597514 Free PMC article. Review.
Borisov AV, Zakharova OA, Samarinova AA, Yunusova NV, Cheremisina OV, Kistenev YV. Borisov AV, et al. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022 Jul 24;12(8):1792. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics12081792. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022. PMID: 35892503 Free PMC article.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.3