Colorectal cancer prevention in Central, Eastern European and South Caucasus countries: a review of policy approaches.

PURPOSE: This study aims to examine the availability and comprehensiveness of policies pertaining to colorectal cancer (CRC) in Central, Eastern European and South Caucasus countries, as it is a major public health concern in these regions and the second most common cause of cancer deaths among women. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: We performed a scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley methodology, searching for publicly available policy documents from 18 countries. We described the prevention methods and activities in each country based on the World Health Organization guidelines for CRC screening. FINDINGS: Our research found that most countries had at least five policies related to CRC prevention, which most commonly included primary, secondary and tertiary prevention measures. Elements such as promoting healthy lifestyle choices and implementing screening methods such as fecal occult blood tests, fecal immunochemical tests or colonoscopy were frequently mentioned in these policies. However, target age ranges varied among countries. Our analysis revealed a pressing need to increase the availability and utilization of CRC screening in these countries. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: One of the main limitations of this study is that it is a desk review conducted using internet-based resources, which may have missed important sources or recent policy documents that are not yet available online. Despite our efforts to include all relevant policies, it is possible that we overlooked other policies that contain relevant information, such as those that cover cancer treatment methods. Additionally, our search excluded primary healthcare and universal healthcare coverage policies, which could include important information on CRC prevention and control activities. Additionally, as a scoping review approach was used, no critical assessment of the included studies or literature was conducted. Furthermore, due to the limited number of countries included, the comparability of the findings is limited. In future research, it would be beneficial to expand the study and collect new data from decision-makers and stakeholders to further investigate these hypotheses. It is also important to note that the presence of a policy document is not the end goal, as it is simply a step toward better outcomes. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: In summary, our research highlights the need for improved and unified efforts toward preventing and detecting CRC in Central, Eastern European and South Caucasus countries. This knowledge can be used to focus efforts on developing a standardized policy document and national screening program that can be adapted to meet the unique needs of each country. The importance of CRC screening, regardless of need, must be emphasized in order to aid in the transition from curative to preventive cancer care. Our study highlights the need for more detailed and science-based policies for CRC prevention and screening in Central, Eastern European and South Caucasus countries. While many countries have policies in place, they often lack key components and do not fully reflect current evidence-based guidelines. To improve population health outcomes, further research is needed to understand the implementation and enforcement of these policies as well as their impact on cancer incidence and survival. As the screening landscape evolves, countries may learn from each other and a better understanding of the complex policy frameworks that impact CRC screening is needed so that countries can update and tailor policy documents to their specific situations. SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS: In conclusion, policymakers in Central, Eastern European and South Caucasus countries have implemented various policy approaches to prevent and control the CRC. The effectiveness of these approaches varies across countries and depends on several factors, including the availability of resources, the level of public awareness and the political will to implement effective policies. Further research is needed to determine the most effective policy approaches for CRC prevention in these regions and to ensure that the right policies are in place to reduce the incidence and impact of this disease. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The study aimed to identify gaps in existing research and areas for future work by mapping, categorizing and organizing existing evidence on CRC policies in Central, Eastern European and South Caucasus countries. Additional research is necessary to understand the implementation and enforcement of these policies and how they impact health outcomes such as cancer incidence and survival. HIGHLIGHTS: CRC policy is heterogeneous in Central and Eastern Europe and the South Caucasus region.There are particularly important differences regarding the implementation of CRC screening.Cancer screening and palliative care approaches were less frequently included.Variations exist in the comprehensiveness of policy by prevention level and country.

Incidence and Patterns of Digestive Organ Cancer in Georgia: Insights from a Population-Based Registry Study in 2021.

Digestive organ cancer, also known as gastrointestinal (GI) cancer, refers to cancer that occurs in the digestive tract. In this population-based registry study, we aimed to investigate the incidence of GI in Georgia and to identify any patterns in the occurrence of different types of this disease. The study included all cases of GI cancer that were diagnosed in Georgia in 2021. We analyzed 1635 patients' data to determine the overall and age-standardized incidence of GI cancer in the country. The analyses were performed for esophagus, stomach, colon, rectum, anus, liver and intrahepatic bile ducts, gallbladder, and pancreas separately. The descriptive statistics used in the study-specifically counts, means, proportions, and rates-were calculated using the statistical software STATA version 17.0. (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA). The results of the study showed that the incidence of digestive organ cancer in Georgia was similar to the global average. However, there were some notable differences in the specific types of GI cancer that were most common in the country. Overall, this study provides important insights into the incidence of digestive organ cancer in Georgia and highlights the need for further research to better understand the factors that contribute to this disease.

The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) in Georgia continues to increase: A population-based registry study.

INTRODUCTION: CRC is one of the most common and serious public health problem. In Georgia, it ranks among the top five most fatal cancers for both men and women. This study aimed to utilize cancer registry data to evaluate the incidence and stage distribution of CRC in Georgia. METHODS: The study included all new cases of CRC registered in Georgia during the period 2018-2021 (classified under ICD-10 codes C18-C21). The annual gender- and age-group-specific population figures were obtained from the National Statistics Office of Georgia (GEOSTAT). RESULTS: Among the cases analyzed, the majority of patients were men (53.23%). Only about one third of the cases were diagnosed at the localized stage. The study found that the number of patients diagnosed with CRC in Georgia gradually increased from 2018 to 2021. The age-standardized incidence rates of CRC in men and women in 2021 were 17.09 and 12.04 per 100,000 individuals, respectively, with men having a slightly higher rate. The crude and direct age-standardized incidence rates increased over the 4-year period, but slightly changed in 2020. The directly adjusted incidence rate over the 4-year period was 55.44 per 100,000 population. The share of distant stage has reduced in both men and women from 2018 to 2021, but detection at localized stage remains low. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of colorectal cancer in Georgia increased with advancing stage, emphasizing the need to enhance the country's cancer control program to improve screening uptake.

Knowledge, attitudes, and stigma towards epilepsy in different walks of life: a study in Georgia.

We conducted a survey to assess public awareness of epilepsy and stigma expression in different social groups in Tbilisi, Georgia. Respondents were divided into those from a medical or paramedical background, those with a nonmedical professional background, and a group with unskilled workers or unemployed individuals. One thousand and sixteen people completed a Knowledge, Attitude and Perception questionnaire. Medical and paramedical professionals had a better general knowledge about epilepsy, its possible causes, and its nature, but their views on treatment and attitudes towards epilepsy were the same or worse when compared to the other groups. Of the respondent, 14% would not let their children play with people with epilepsy, and 75% would not allow their children to marry a person with epilepsy. Nearly a third of teachers considered epilepsy a psychiatric disorder. This suggests a high degree of stigma towards epilepsy in Georgia. Increasing awareness is crucial to ameliorate this.

The prevalence and treatment gap of epilepsy in Tbilisi, Georgia.

INTRODUCTION: Data on the prevalence of epilepsy and the extent of its treatment gap are important for planning health care delivery for people with epilepsy. The prevalence of active epilepsy in Georgia prior to the social and political re-organization in the early 1990s was estimated at around 5.7 per 1000. Changes to the social structure of the country may have affected this. There is no previous estimate of the treatment gap. METHODS: A door-to-door survey was carried out using a validated screening questionnaire to determine the prevalence of epilepsy and the extent of the treatment gap amongst a population of about 10,000 people in Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia. The diagnosis of epilepsy amongst those who screened positive was confirmed by a multidisciplinary team. RESULTS: Lifetime prevalence was 11.4/1000. The prevalence of active epilepsy was estimated at 8.8/1000, and 5/1000 had seizures in the previous 12 months. About two thirds of people with active epilepsy had not received appropriate antiepileptic treatment in the month prior to the survey. 89% had focal epilepsy and two thirds had co-morbidity (neurological deficits, behavioral, psychiatric or somatic problems). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of epilepsy was higher than previously estimated and the treatment gap was substantial. Results should inform the planning of epilepsy care delivery in the country.