Development and pilot implementation of a novel protocol to assess capacity and readiness of health systems to adopt HPV detection-based cervical cancer screening in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer remains a significant public health concern in Europe. Effective introduction and scaling up of human papillomavirus (HPV) detection-based cervical cancer screening (CCS) requires a systematic assessment of health systems capacity. However, there is no validated capacity assessment methodology for CCS programmes, especially in European contexts. Addressing this gap, our study introduces an innovative and adaptable protocol for evaluating the capacity of CCS programmes across varying European health system settings. METHODS: Our research team developed a three-step capacity assessment framework, incorporating a health policy review checklist, a facility visit survey, and key informants' interview guide followed by a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis. Piloting this comprehensive approach, we explored the CCS capacity in three countries: Estonia, Portugal and Romania. These countries were selected due to their contrasting healthcare structures and resources, providing a diverse overview of the European context. RESULTS: Conducted over a period of 9 months, the capacity assessment covered multiple resources, 27 screening centres, 16 colposcopy and treatment centres and 15 key informant interviews. Our analysis highlighted both shared and country-specific challenges. A key common issue was ensuring high compliance to follow-up and management of screen-positive women. We identified considerable heterogeneity in resources and organization across the three countries, underscoring the need for tailored, rather than one-size-fits-all, solutions. CONCLUSIONS: Our study's novelty lies in the successful development of this capacity assessment methodology implementable within a relatively short time frame, proving its feasibility for use in various contexts and countries. The resulting set of materials, adaptable to different cancer types, is a ready-to-use toolkit to improve cancer screening processes and outcomes. This research marks a significant stride towards comprehensive capacity assessment for CCS programmes in Europe. Future directions include deploying these tools in other countries and cancer types, thereby contributing to the global fight against cancer.

Assessment of barriers to cancer screening and interventions implemented to overcome these barriers in 27 Latin American and Caribbean countries.

There is a gap in the understanding of the barriers to cancer screening participation and complying with downstream management in the Community of Latin American and Caribbean states (CELAC). Our study aimed to assess barriers across the cancer screening pathway from the health system perspective, and interventions in place to improve screening in CELAC. A standardized tool was used to collect information on the barriers across the screening pathway through engagement with the health authorities of 27 member states of CELAC. Barriers were organized in a framework adapted from the Tanahashi conceptual model and consisted of the following dimensions: availability of services, access (covering accessibility and affordability), acceptability, user-provider interaction, and effectiveness of services (which includes governance, protocols and guidelines, information system, and quality assurance). The tool also collected information of interventions in place, categorized in user-directed interventions to increase demand, user-directed interventions to increase access, provider-directed interventions, and policy and system-level interventions. All countries prioritized barriers related to the information systems, such as the population register not being accurate or complete (N = 19; 70.4%). All countries implemented some kind of intervention to improve cancer screening, group education being the most reported (N = 23; 85.2%). Training on screening delivery was the most referred provider-directed intervention (N = 19; 70.4%). The study has identified several barriers to the implementation of cancer screening in the region and interventions in place to overcome some of the barriers. Further analysis is required to evaluate the effectiveness of these interventions in achieving their objectives.

Assessment of organization of cervical and breast cancer screening programmes in the Latin American and the Caribbean states: The CanScreen5 framework.

BACKGROUND: In the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), breast cancer and cervical cancer are the first and third causes of cancer death among females. The objectives are to assess the characteristics of the cervical and breast cancer screening programmes in CELAC, their level of organization, and the association of screening organization and coverage of essential health services. METHODS: Representatives of the Ministries of Health of 33 countries were invited to the CanScreen5 project. Twenty-seven countries participated in a "Train The Trainers" programme on cancer screening, and 26 submitted data using standardized questionnaires. Data were discussed and validated. The level of organization of the screening programmes was examined adapting the list of essential elements of organized screening programmes identified in a recently published IARC study. RESULTS: Twenty-one countries reported a screening programme for cervical cancer and 15 for breast cancer. For cervical cancer, 14 countries dedicated budget for screening (66.7%), and women had to pay in 3 countries for screening (14.3%), 9 for diagnosis (42.9%) and 8 for treatment (38.1%). Only 4 countries had a system to invite women individually (19.0%). For breast cancer, 8 countries dedicated budget for screening (53.3%), and women had to pay for screening in 3 countries (20.0%), diagnosis in 7 (46.7%) and treatment in 6 (40.0%). One country (6.7%) invited women individually. There was variability in the level of organization of both cancer screening programmes. The level of organization of cervical cancer screening and coverage of essential health services were correlated. CONCLUSION: Large gaps were identified in the organization of cervical and breast cancer screening services. CELAC governments need pragmatic public health policies and strengthened health systems. They should guarantee sustainable funding, and universal access to cancer diagnosis and treatment. Moreover, countries should enhance their health information system and ensure adequate monitoring and evaluation.

Components and effectiveness of patient navigation programmes to increase participation to breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Inequalities in cancer incidence and mortality can be partly explained by unequal access to high-quality health services, including cancer screening. Several interventions have been described to increase access to cancer screening, among them patient navigation (PN), a barrier-focused intervention. This systematic review aimed to identify the reported components of PN and to assess the effectiveness of PN to promote breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening. METHODS: We searched Embase, PubMed and Web of Science Core Collection databases. The components of PN programmes were identified, including the types of barriers addressed by navigators. The percentage change in screening participation was calculated. RESULTS: The 44 studies included were mainly on colorectal cancer and were conducted in the USA. All described their goals and community characteristics, and the majority reported the setting (97.7%), monitoring and evaluation (97.7%), navigator background and qualifications (81.4%) and training (79.1%). Supervision was only referred to in 16 studies (36.4%). Programmes addressed mainly barriers at the educational (63.6%) and health system level (61.4%), while only 25.0% reported providing social and emotional support. PN increased cancer screening participation when compared with usual care (0.4% to 250.6% higher) and educational interventions (3.3% to 3558.0% higher). CONCLUSION: Patient navigation programmes are effective at increasing participation to breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening. A standardized reporting of the components of PN programmes would allow their replication and a better measure of their impact. Understanding the local context and needs is essential to design a successful PN programme.

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.

Survey of current policies towards widening cervical screening coverage among vulnerable women in 22 European countries.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate the status of cervical cancer screening (CCS) implementation in Europe by investigating national or regional policies towards broadening coverage of CCS amongst vulnerable subgroups of the population at high risk for CC. METHODS: A web-based survey was conducted between September 2021 and February 2022 with CCS programme managers and experts to identify and rank six population subgroups at high risk considered most vulnerable to CC and to map existing policies that addressed the coverage of CCS towards population sub-groups at risk. RESULTS: A total of 31 responses were received from experts covering 22 European countries. The results of this survey suggest that whilst many countries identify lower coverage of CCS amongst population subgroups at high risk of CC as a public health problem, few countries have developed dedicated policies towards broadening coverage among these subgroups. The six countries who reported having done so were concentrated in the Northern or Western European regions, suggesting the existence of geographical disparities within the continent. A key challenge in this respect is the difficulty to categorize subgroups of the target population; many individuals are burdened by intersectionality thereby resting in multiple categories, which may hinder the effectiveness of interventions targeted to reach specific subgroups. CONCLUSION: A greater clarity on the conceptualization of vulnerability can help countries to develop and subsequently implement strategies to increase coverage to subgroups of the target population currently underserved with regards to CCS.

Efficacy, acceptability and safety of ablative versus excisional procedure in the treatment of histologically confirmed CIN2/3: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes of earlier systematic reviews of the efficacy of ablative and excisional techniques to treat cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 (CIN2/3) were biased, as most of the included studies did not compare the techniques head-to-head. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the outcomes of studies comparing ablative and excisional techniques to treat CIN2/3 head-to-head. SEARCH STRATEGY: Medline, Embase and Global Index Medicus were searched from inception until May 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies directly comparing the efficacy and safety of excisional and ablative treatments on histologically confirmed CIN2/3. Eligibility criteria for the women treated with ablation had to be same as those treated with excision. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A total of 323 articles were archived. Data on the risk of persistence/recurrence and safety were extracted from the original trials. Comparison between the two procedures was reported by forest plots, stratified by follow-up intervals and by HIV status. MAIN RESULTS: Six publications were included. The risk of persistence/recurrence following ablation was significantly higher than that following excision (overall, RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.25-2.19; at 6-month follow-up, RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.29-2.91; at 12-month follow-up, RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.27-2.51; at 24-month follow-up, RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.11-2.23). The findings remained similar among women living with HIV (WLHIV). Both procedures were equally safe. CONCLUSIONS: Excisional treatment was more effective than ablative treatment, with both procedures having similar safety profiles. Other programmatic considerations will guide the selection of technique, especially in resource-limited settings.

Cancer burden and status of cancer control measures in fragile states: a comparative analysis of 31 countries.

BACKGROUND: Information on cancer statistics and cancer control policies is limited in fragile states. This paper describes the cancer burden and status of cancer control measures in these countries. METHODS: In this comparative analysis, fragile states presenting with a Fragile States Index (FSI) score of 90·0 or more (alert for fragility) for at least 10 years during the 2006-20 period were selected. States with fewer than 10 years of data were selected if they were in alert for fragility during all years. Information on cancer burden, prevalence of cancer risk factors, population-attributable fraction, and on political commitment, health financing, and health system capacity was collected. Cancer incidence and mortality was calculated on the basis of data from population-based cancer registries, estimated with modelling that used mortality-to-incidence ratios and incidence-to-mortality ratios derived from cancer registries in neighbouring countries, or average of rates in selected neighbouring countries. For statistical comparison, fragile states were grouped according to the annual percent change (APC) of the FSI, with group 1 showing an increasing fragility trend (APC 0·2% or higher), group 2 a relatively stable fragility trend (APC between 0·2% and -0·2%), and group 3 a decreasing fragility trend (APC of -0·2% or lower). FINDINGS: Overall, the estimated cancer burden in the 31 selected fragile states was lower than worldwide rates, except for cervical and prostate cancer. Cancer cases were attributed to infections (22·40% in group 1, 21·20% in group 2, and 18·80% in group 3) at a higher proportion in fragile states than globally (13·0%). Group 1 and 2 showed a significantly higher exposure to household air pollution (97·70% in group 1 and 94·90% in group 2), whereas current tobacco use in men increased from group 1 to group 3, with lung cancer incidence and mortality being higher in group 3. However, 25 countries had implemented only one or no MPOWER measures for tobacco control. Countries showed an out-of-pocket expenditure of 48·72% in group 1, 42·68% in group 2, and 51·07% in group 3, and only half of the countries had an updated cancer control plan or cancer management guidelines. INTERPRETATION: Fragile states have started the epidemiological transition but are still not implementing enough cancer control measures. There is a need to develop reliable cancer control plans and guidelines, and to create financial mechanisms for implementation. FUNDING: None. TRANSLATIONS: For the Arabic and French translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

An international consensus on the essential and desirable criteria for an 'organized' cancer screening programme.

BACKGROUND: High variability in the definition and interpretation of organized cancer screening needs to be addressed systematically. Moreover, the relevance of the current practice of categorizing screening programmes dichotomously into organized or non-organized needs to be revisited in the context of considerable heterogeneity that exists in the delivery of cancer screening in the real world. We aimed to identify the essential and desirable criteria for organized cancer screening that serve as a charter of best practices in cancer screening. METHODS: We first did a systematic review of literature to arrive at an exhaustive list of criteria used by various publications to describe or define organized cancer screening, based on which, a consolidated list of criteria was generated. Next, we used a Delphi process comprising of two rounds of online surveys to seek agreement of experts to categorize each criterion into essential, desirable, or neither. Consensus was considered to have been achieved based on a predetermined criterion of agreement from at least 80% of the experts. The outcomes were presented before the experts in a virtual meeting for feedbacks and clarifications. RESULTS: A total of 32 consolidated criteria for an organized screening programme were identified and presented to 24 experts from 20 countries to select the essential criteria in the Delphi first round. Total 16 criteria were selected as essential with the topmost criteria (based on the agreement of 96% of experts) being the availability of a protocol/guideline describing at least the target population, screening intervals, screening tests, referral pathway, management of positive cases and a system being in place to identify the eligible populations. In the second round of Delphi, the experts selected eight desirable criteria out of the rest 16. The most agreed upon desirable criterion was existence of a specified organization or a team responsible for programme implementation and/or coordination. CONCLUSIONS: We established an international consensus on essential and desirable criteria, which screening programmes would aspire to fulfil to be better-organized. The harmonized criteria are a ready-to-use guide for programme managers and policymakers to prioritize interventions and resources rather than supporting the dichotomous and simplistic approach of categorizing programmes as organized or non-organized.

Cross-sectional survey of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer screening programs in selected low- and middle-income countries: Study from the IARC COVID-19 impact study group.

We conducted a study to document the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on cancer screening continuum in selected low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). LMICs having an operational cancer control plan committed to screen eligible individuals were selected. Managers/supervisors of cancer screening programs were invited to participate in an online survey and subsequent in-depth interview. Managers/supervisors from 18 programs in 17 countries participated. Lockdown was imposed in all countries except Brazil. Screening was suspended for at least 30 days in 13 countries, while diagnostic-services for screen-positives were suspended in 9 countries. All countries except Cameroon, Bangladesh, India, Honduras and China managed to continue with cancer treatment throughout the outbreak. The participants rated service availability compared to pre-COVID days on a scale of 0 (no activities) to 100 (same as before). A rating of ≤50 was given for screening services by 61.1%, diagnostic services by 44.4% and treatment services by 22.2% participants. At least 70% participants strongly agreed that increased noncompliance of screen-positive individuals and staff being overloaded or overwhelmed with backlogs would deeply impact screening programs in the next 6 months at least. Although many of the LMICs were deficient in following the "best practices" to minimize service disruptions, at least some of them made significant efforts to improve screening participation, treatment compliance and program organization. A well-coordinated effort is needed to reinitiate screening services in the LMICs, starting with a situational analysis. Innovative strategies adopted by the programs to keep services on-track should be mutually shared.

Inequalities in participation in colorectal cancer screening programmes: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major public health problem due to its incidence and mortality. Screening programmes help decrease its impact on the population through early detection. However, the uneven distribution of social determinants of health can cause inequalities. The aim of this study is to identify the social inequalities in the participation in CRC screening programmes. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was carried out, searching in both health and social databases for papers published since 2000 in English, Spanish, Portuguese and French. The search strategies combined terms regarding screening, CRC, participation and social inequalities. Included papers were quantitative or qualitative primary studies analyzing gender and socioeconomic inequalities in the participation in CRC screening programmes implemented by public and private health-care providers and addressing 45- to 75-year-old population. RESULTS: A total of 96 studies, described in 102 articles, were included. Most were quantitative observational studies and analyzed population-based screening programmes. They were carried out mainly in the UK (n=29) and the USA (n=18). Participation in screening programmes varied from 1.1% to 82.8% using several methods. A total of 87 studies assessed participation by sex and one focussed on men, but only two provided an analysis from a gender perspective. Although men are at a higher risk of developing CRC, they generally were less likely to participate in screening programmes. Screening attendance was higher among the least deprived areas. CONCLUSIONS: Gender and socioeconomic inequalities in CRC screening participation should be addressed through the design of tailored interventions with a multidimensional focus.