European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis: overview and introduction to the full supplement publication.

Population-based screening for early detection and treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) and precursor lesions, using evidence-based methods, can be effective in populations with a significant burden of the disease provided the services are of high quality. Multidisciplinary, evidence-based guidelines for quality assurance in CRC screening and diagnosis have been developed by experts in a project co-financed by the European Union. The 450-page guidelines were published in book format by the European Commission in 2010.  They include 10 chapters and over 250 recommendations, individually graded according to the strength of the recommendation and the supporting evidence. Adoption of the recommendations can improve and maintain the quality and effectiveness of an entire screening process, including identification and invitation of the target population, diagnosis and management of the disease and appropriate surveillance in people with detected lesions. To make the principles, recommendations and standards in the guidelines known to a wider professional and scientific community and to facilitate their use in the scientific literature, the original content is presented in journal format in an open-access Supplement of Endoscopy. The editors have prepared the present overview to inform readers of the comprehensive scope and content of the guidelines.

European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. First Edition--Organisation.

Multidisciplinary, evidence-based guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis have been developed by experts in a project coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The full guideline document covers the entire process of population-based screening. It consists of 10 chapters and over 250 recommendations, graded according to the strength of the recommendation and the supporting evidence. The 450-page guidelines and the extensive evidence base have been published by the European Commission. The chapter on organisation includes 29 graded recommendations. The content of the chapter is presented here to promote international discussion and collaboration by making the principles and standards recommended in the new EU Guidelines known to a wider professional and scientific community. Following these recommendations has the potential to enhance the control of colorectal cancer through improvement in the quality and effectiveness of the screening process, including multi-disciplinary diagnosis and management of the disease.

European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. First Edition--Principles of evidence assessment and methods for reaching recommendations.

Multidisciplinary, evidence-based guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis have been developed by experts in a project coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The full guideline document covers the entire process of population-based screening. It consists of 10 chapters and over 250 recommendations, graded according to the strength of the recommendation and the supporting evidence. The 450-page guidelines and the extensive evidence base have been published by the European Commission. The principles of evidence assessment and methods for reaching recommendations are presented here to promote international discussion and collaboration by making the principles and methods used in developing the guidelines known to a wider professional and scientific community. Following this methodology in the future updating of the guidelines has the potential to enhance the control of colorectal cancer through improvement in the quality and effectiveness of the screening process, including multidisciplinary diagnosis and management of the disease.

Assessment of the multiple components of the variability in the adenoma detection rate in sigmoidoscopy screening, and lessons for training.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The determinants of the observed variability of adenoma detection rate (ADR) in endoscopy screening have not yet been fully explained. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between November 1999 and November 2006 13 764 people (7094 men, 6670 women; age range 55-64) underwent screening flexible sigmoidoscopy at five hospital endoscopy units in Turin. To study the determinants of the ADR for distal adenomas, accounting for patient, examiner, and hospital characteristics, we applied a multivariate multilevel regression model. RESULTS: Average ADRs for all adenomas and for advanced adenomas (size > or = 10 mm, villous component > 20 %, high grade dysplasia) were 13.5 % (range 5.2 %-25.0 %) and 6.4 % (3.1 %-10.7 %) for men, and 8.0 % (2.5 %-14.0 %) and 3.7 % (0.2 % - 7.4 %) for women. In multivariate analysis, increased ADR of advanced adenomas was associated with male gender (odds ratio [OR] 1.78, 95 %CI 1.49 - 2.11), self-report of one first-degree relative with colorectal cancer (CRC) (1.44, 1.11-1.86), or of recent-onset rectal bleeding (1.73, 1.24-2.40). Adjusting for these variables, a significantly lower ADR was found for endoscopists with either a lower rate of incomplete sigmoidoscopy (< 9 %; OR 0.59, 95 %CI 0.41-0.87) or a higher rate (> 12 %; 0.64, 0.45-0.91), or with low activity volume (< 85 sigmoidoscopies/year; 0.66, 0.50-0.86). Residual variability explained by the endoscopy center effect was about 1 % and statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopist performance in flexible sigmoidoscopy CRC screening is highly variable. Low volume of screening activity independently predicts lower ADR, suggesting that operators devoting more time to screening sigmoidoscopy may perform better. Variability among pathologists in adenoma classification might explain part of the residual variability across endoscopy units.

Do women >or=50 years of age need as much screening as women <50 years after they have had negative screening results?

To assess the adequacy of a routine screening to identify cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or worse (CIN2+) in women over 50 years of age, a retrospective cohort was set in six Italian organised population-based screening programmes. In all, 287 330 women (1 714 550 person-years of observation, 1110 cases) screened at age 25-64, with at least two cytological screening tests, the first negative, were followed from their first negative smear until a biopsy proven CIN2+ lesion or their last negative smear. For women aged 25-49 and 50-64 years, crude and age-standardised detection rate (DR), cumulative risk (CR), adjusted hazard risk for number of previous negative screens, probability of false-positive CIN2+ after two or more smear tests were calculated. Detection rate is significantly lower over 50 years of age. Multivariable analysis shows a significant protective effect from four screening episodes (DR=0.70, 95% CI: 0.51-0.97); the effect of age >or=50 is 0.29 (95% CI: 0.24-0.35). The CR of CIN2+ is at least eightfold higher in women <50 (CR=2.06, 95% CI: 1.88-2.23) after one previous negative test than in women >or=50 years with four screens (CR=0.23, 95% CI: 0.00-0.46). Over 50 years of age, after four tests at least three false-positive cases are diagnosed for every true positive. Benefits arising from cytological screening is uncertain in well-screened older women.

[Compliance, conscious participation, and informed consent in tumor screening programs]. / "Compliance", partecipazione consapevole e consenso informato nei programmi di screening dei tumori.

Compliance and coverage are supposed to be indicators of effectiveness in screening activities. Yet effectiveness is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a screening programme: adverse effects are intrinsic to screening practice; to persuade to comply to screening programme should imply that the advantages overwhelm the disadvantages; if at community level the balance is in favour of the screening, it is not possible to predict the weight for each individual of any potential harms. To accomplish individual values is fundamental from ethical point of view: we must avoid non responsible participation or uninformed refusal, through a reliable information on screening benefits and harms to the invited population. Therefore the concept of compliance should be abandon: "participation" should be used instead. The consequence of a different approach to participation in screening evaluation should be appreciated: new indicators and standards have to be defined. The following ones are proposed: prevalence of informed target population; prevalence of consent to invitation within the informed population; ratio consent/refusal to invitation; prevalence of participation in the invited group. It is unrealistic to expect an informed participation, to screening programme, from all population but incorporation of patient values and preferences is seen as the next frontier in attempts to devise valid practice guidelines. Research is needed to develop instrument on risk communication and informed consent, taking into account the current organisation of screening programs.