Performance Indicators in Screening Programmes

Czech version

Authors: O. Májek ^1,2; O. Ngo ¹; J. Daneš ³; M. Zavoral ⁴; V. Dvořák ⁵; D. Klimeš ¹; L. Dušek ^1,2
Authors‘ workplace: Institut bio statistiky a analýz, LF a PřF MU, Brno ¹; Ústav zdravotnických informací a statistiky ČR, Praha ²; Radiodia gnostická klinika 1. LF UK a VFN v Praze ³; Interní klinika 1. LF UK a ÚVN, Praha ⁴; Centrum ambulantní gynekologie a primární péče, Brno ⁵
Published in: Klin Onkol 2014; 27(Supplementum 2): 106-112
doi: https://doi.org/10.14735/amko20142S106

Overview

Breast, colorectal and cervical cancer screening programmes make it possible to decrease the population mortality rates of these diseases. However, complex standards of the quality of care must be introduced and followed in order to maintain a favourable ratio between the benefits and risks arising from population‑ wide screening programmes. Such programmes should be organized and population‑based, ensuring that quality control is performed at all levels. This review introduces the system of quality control in the Czech cancer screening programmes, and provides specific examples of performance indicators that are usable and/ or being used in these programmes. Cancer screening programmes in the Czech Republic are equipped with a comprehensive information background which involves monitoring of the cancer burden in the population, monitoring of the screening process based on clinical data, and monitoring of the screening process based on administrative data. In particular, the specific performance indicators describe the success rate of take‑ up of the target population, ability of the screening test to reveal (sensitivity) or to exclude (specificity) the screened condition, correct employment of subsequent diagnostic methods or treatment of detected cancers or precancerous lesions where applicable. In the Czech breast cancer screening programme, these indicators are routinely used in order to monitor the individual centres; in both colorectal and cervical cancer screening programmes, these indicators are used to monitor the entire programme, whereas the system of quality control for individual centres is under continuous development. A project of personalized invitations was launched in 2014, and its results are regularly evaluated in cooperation with the Czech National Reference Centre and the Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic.

Key words:
cancer – mass screening – health care quality indicators

This study was supported by the project 36/14//NAP “Development and implementation of methodology for the evaluation of effectiveness of personalised invitations of citizens to cancer screening programmes” as part of the programme of the Czech Ministry of Health “National action plans and conceptions”.

The authors declare they have no potential conflicts of interest concerning drugs, products, or services used in the study.

The Editorial Board declares that the manuscript met the ICMJE “uniform requirements” for biomedical papers.

Submitted:
16. 9. 2014

Accepted:
31. 10. 2014

Sources

1. Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet 2012; 380(9855): 1778−1786. doi: 10.1016/ S0140‑ 6736(12)61611‑ 0.

2. Hewitson P, Glasziou P, Watson E et al. Cochrane systematic review of colorectal cancer screening using the fecal occult blood test (hemoccult): an update. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103(6): 1541−1549. doi: 10.1111/ j.1572‑ 0241.2008.01875.x.

3. Lăără E, Day NE, Hakama M. Trends in mortality from cervical cancer in the Nordic countries: association with organised screening programmes. Lancet 1987; 1(8544): 1247−1249.

4. Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C et al (eds). European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. 4th ed. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 2006.

5. Arbyn M, Anttila A, Jordan J et al (eds). European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening. 2nd ed. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 2008.

6. Segnan N, Patnick J, von Karsa L (eds). European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union 2010.

7. The Council of the European Union. Council Recommendation of 2 December 2003 on cancer screening (2003/ 878/ EC). Off J Eur Union 2003; L 327: 34– 38.

8. Dušek L, Mužík J, Kubásek M et al (eds). Epidemiologie zhoubných nádorů v České republice [Internet]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita; 2005 [citováno 30. srpna 2014]. Dostupný z: http:/ / www.svod.cz.

9. von Karsa L, Anttila A, Ronco G et al (eds). Cancer Screening in the European Union: Report on the implementation of the Council Recommendation on cancer screening. Luxembourg: European Communities 2008.

10. Zavoral M, Suchanek S, Majek O et al. Colorectal cancer screening: 20 years of development and recent progress. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20(14): 3825−3834. doi: 10.3748/ wjg.v20.i14.3825.

11. Lieberman D, Nadel M, Smith RA et al. Standardized colonoscopy reporting and data system: report of the Quality Assurance Task Group of the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 65(6): 757−766.

12. Valori R, Sint Nicolaas J, de Jonge V. Quality assurance of endoscopy in colorectal cancer screening. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2010; 24(4): 451−464. doi: 10.1016/ j.bpg.2010.06.006.

13. von Karsa L, Lignini TA, Patnick J et al. The dimensions of the CRC problem. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2010; 24(4): 381−396. doi: 10.1016/ j.bpg.2010.06.004.

14. Vainio H, Bianchini F (eds). Breast Cancer Screening. Lyon: IARC Press 2002.

15. Day NE, Williams DR, Khaw KT. Breast cancer screening programmes: the development of a monitoring and evaluation system. Br J Cancer 1989; 59(6): 954– 958.

16. Suchanek S, Majek O, Vojtechova G et al. Colorectal cancer prevention in the Czech Republic: time trends in performance indicators and current situation after 10 years of screening. Eur J Cancer Prev 2014; 23(1): 18– 26. doi: 10.1097/ CEJ.0b013e328364f203.

17. Lynge E, Olsen AH, Fracheboud J et al. Reporting of performance indicators of mammography screening in Europe. Eur J Cancer Prev 2003; 12(3): 213– 222.

18. Giordano L, von Karsa L, Tomatis M et al. Mammographic screening programmes in Europe: organization, coverage and participation. J Med Screen 2012; 19 (Suppl 1): 72– 82.

19. Lynge E, Ponti A, James T et al. Variation in detection of ductal carcinoma in situ during screening mammography: a survey within the International Cancer Screening Network. Eur J Cancer 2014; 50(1): 185– 192. doi: 10.1016/ j.ejca.2013.08.013.

20. Májek O, Dušek L, Daneš J et al. Proč využíváme mamografii pro screening nádorů prsu a nepřestaneme ji využívat ani po vydání „aktuální“ kanadské studie? Prakt Gyn 2014; 18(1): 66– 68.

21. Majek O, Danes J, Skovajsova M et al. Breast cancer screening in the Czech Republic: time trends in performance indicators during the first seven years of the organised programme. BMC Public Health 2011; 11: 288. doi: 10.1186/ 1471‑ 2458‑ 11‑ 288.

22. Brenner H, Hoffmeister M, Brenner G et al. Expected reduction of colorectal cancer incidence within 8 years after introduction of the German screening colonoscopy programme: estimates based on 1,875,708 screening colonoscopies. Eur J Cancer 2009; 45(11): 2027– 2033. doi: 10.1016/ j.ejca.2009.02.017.

23. Pavlik T, Majek O, Buchler T et al. Trends in stage‑ specific population‑based survival of cancer patients in the Czech Republic in the period 2000– 2008. Cancer Epidemiol 2014; 38(1): 28– 34. doi: 10.1016/ j.canep.2013.11.002.

24. Rosso S, Gondos A, Zanetti R et al. Up‑ to‑ date estimates of breast cancer survival for the years 2000– 2004 in 11 European countries: the role of screening and a comparison with data from the United States. Eur J Cancer 2010; 46(18): 3351– 3357. doi: 10.1016/ j.ejca.2010.09.019.