Background:Nordic countries' data offer a unique possibility to evaluate the long-term benefit of cervical cancer screening in a context of increasing risk of human papillomavirus infection.Methods:Ad hoc-refined age-period-cohort models were applied to the last 50-year incidence data from Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden to project expected cervical cancer cases in a no-screening scenario.Results:In the absence of screening, projected incidence rates for 2006–2010 in Nordic countries would have been between 3 and 5 times higher than observed rates. Over 60 000 cases or between 41 and 49% of the expected cases of cervical cancer may have been prevented by the introduction of screening in the late 1960 s and early 1970 s.Conclusions:Our study suggests that screening programmes might have prevented a HPV-driven epidemic of cervical cancer in Nordic countries. According to extrapolations from cohort effects, cervical cancer incidence rates in the Nordic countries would have been otherwise comparable to the highest incidence rates currently detected in low-income countries.

The second report on the implementation status of cancer screening in European Union (EU) was published in 2017. The report described the implementation status, protocols and organization (updated till 2016) and invitation coverage (for index year 2013) of breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening in the EU. Experts in screening programme monitoring (N 5 80) from the EU Member States having access to requisite information in their respective countries provided data on breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening through online questionnaires. Data was collected for screening performed in the framework of publicly mandated programmes only. Filled in questionnaires were received from 26 Member States for all three sites and from one Member State for breast cancer only. Substantial improvement in screening implementation using populationbased approach was documented. Among the age-eligible women, 94.7% were residents of Member States implementing or planning population-based breast cancer screening in 2016, compared to 91.6% in 2007. The corresponding figures for cervical cancer screening were 72.3 and 51.3% in 2016 and 2007, respectively. Most significant improvement was documented for colorectal cancer screening with roll-out ongoing or completed in 17 Member States in 2016, compared to only five in 2007. So the access to population-based screening increased to 72.4% of the age-eligible populations in 2016 as opposed to only 42.6% in 2007. The invitation coverage was highly variable, ranging from 0.2-111% for breast cancer, 7.6-105% for cervical cancer and 1.8-127% for colorectal cancer in the target populations. In spite of the considerable progress, much work remains to be done to achieve optimal effectiveness. Continued monitoring, regular feedbacks and periodic reporting are needed to ensure the desired impacts of the programmes.

ObjectiveTo present comparative data about the performance of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes in the European Union Member States (EU MSs).DesignCross-sectional study. We analysed key performance indicators—participation rate, positivity rate (PR), detection rate (DR) and positive predictive value for adenomas and CRC—based on the aggregated quantitative data collected for the second EU screening report. We derived crude and pooled (through a random effects model) estimates to describe and compare trends across different MSs/regions and screening protocols.ResultsParticipation rate was higher in countries adopting faecal immunochemical test (FIT) (range: 22.8%–71.3%) than in those using guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) (range 4.5%–66.6%), and it showed a positive correlation (ρ=0.842, p<0.001) with participation in breast cancer screening in the same areas. Screening performance showed a large variability. Compliance with referral for colonoscopy (total colonoscopy (TC)) assessment ranged between 64% and 92%; TC completion rate ranged between 92% and 99%. PR and DR of advanced adenomas and CRC were higher in FIT, as compared with gFOBT programmes, and independent of the protocol among men, older subjects and those performing their first screening.ConclusionsThe variability in the results of quality indicators across population-based screening programmes highlights the importance of continuous monitoring, as well as the need to promote quality improvement efforts, as recommended in the EU guidelines. The implementation of monitoring systems, ensuring availability of data for the entire process, together with initiatives aimed to enhance reproducibility of histology and quality of endoscopy, represent a priority in screening programmes management.

Increasing attendance to screening offers the best potential for improving the effectiveness of well-established cervical cancer screening programs. Self-sampling at home for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing as an alternative to a clinical sampling can be a useful policy to increase attendance. To determine whether self-sampling improves screening attendance for women who do not regularly attend the Norwegian Cervical Cancer Screening Programme (NCCSP), 800 women aged 25–69 years in the Oslo area who were due to receive a 2nd reminder to attend regular screening were randomly selected and invited to be part of the intervention group. Women in this group received one of two self-sampling devices, Evalyn Brush or Delphi Screener. To attend screening, women in the intervention group had the option of using the self-sampling device (self-sampling subgroup) or visiting their physician for a cervical smear. Self-sampled specimens were split and analyzed for the presence of high-risk (hr) HPV by the CLART® HPV2 test and the digene® Hybrid Capture (HC)2 test. The control group consisted of 2593 women who received a 2nd reminder letter according to the current guidelines of the NCCSP. The attendance rates were 33.4% in the intervention group and 23.2% in the control group, with similar attendance rates for both self-sampling devices. Women in the self-sampling subgroup responded favorably to both self-sampling devices and cited not remembering receiving a call for screening as the most dominant reason for previous non-attendance. Thirty-two of 34 (94.1%) hrHPV-positive women in the self-sampling subgroup attended follow-up. In conclusion, self-sampling increased attendance rates and was feasible and well received. This study lends further support to the proposal that self-sampling may be a valuable alternative for increasing cervical cancer screening coverage in Norway.