Objective Need for Cancer Prevention in the Czech Republic and Europe, and the State Thereof

Czech version

Authors: L. Dušek ^1,2; O. Májek ^1,2; J. Mužík ^1,2; T. Pavlík ¹; J. Koptíková ¹; J. Gregor ¹
Authors‘ workplace: Institut bio statistiky a analýz, LF a PřF MU, Brno ¹; Ústav zdravotnických informací a statistiky ČR, Praha ²
Published in: Klin Onkol 2014; 27(Supplementum 2): 7-18
doi: https://doi.org/10.14735/amko20142S7

Overview

There is no doubt today of the need for cancer prevention. The growing incidence of cancer itself provides a sufficient justification for prevention programmes. A review of literature presented in this paper also documents the strong background of evidence-based cancer prevention programmes. The article also provides a critical analysis of the current status of primary cancer prevention and cancer screening in the Czech Republic in contrast with available international comparisons. Relevant international data have been obtained from the regularly repeated “Health at a Glance” studies (published by the OECD). Although the Czech Republic is one of the countries with the highest cancer burden in Europe, it has failed to develop and support a cancer prevention policy on a central level, and this also applies to smoking prevention. The Czech population needs an effective national strategy for the support of cancer prevention, as well as a strategy which would ensure equitable cancer care in terms of both quality and correct indication; a strategy which would be sustainable for at least 10 to 15 years to come.

Key words:
oncology – screening – risk factor – prevention – population burden

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:
15. 9. 2014

Accepted:
21. 10. 2014

Sources

1. Uzis.cz [internetová stránka]. Ústav zdravotnických informací a statistiky ČR. Národní onkologický registr (NOR) [citováno 29. srpna 2014]. Dostupný z: http:/ / www.uzis.cz/ registry‑ nzis/ nor.

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

3. Demografická příručka 2009. Český statistický úřad, Praha 2010. Dostupný z: http:/ / www.czso.cz/ csu/ 2010edicniplan.nsf/ p/ 4032- 10.

4. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M et al (eds). GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11 [monograph on the Internet]. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2013 [cited 2014 May 6]. Available from: http:/ / globocan.iarc.fr.

5. University of California Berkeley, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research. Human Mortality Database [cited 2014 Aug 11]. Available from: http:/ / www.mortality.org.

6. Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Duffy SW et al. The Swedish two county trial of mammographic screening for breast cancer: recent results and calculation of benefit. J Epidemiol Community Health 1989; 43(2): 107– 114.

7. Shapiro S, Venet W, Strax P et al. Ten‑ to fourteen‑year effect of screening on breast cancer mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst 1982; 69(2): 349– 355.

8. Nyström L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N et al. Long‑term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 2002; 359(9310): 909– 919.

9. Nyström L, Rutqvist LE, Wall S et al. Breast cancer screening with mammography: overview of Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 1993; 341(8851): 973– 978.

10. Mandel JS, Bond JH, Church TR et al. Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study. N Engl J Med 1993; 328(19): 1365– 1371.

11. Kronborg O, Jørgensen OD, Fenger C et al. Randomised study of biennial screening with a faecal occult blood test: results after nine screening rounds. Scand J Gastroenterol 2004; 39(9): 846– 851.

12. 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.

13. Ronco G, Giorgi‑ Rossi P, Carozzi F et al. Efficacy of human papillomavirus testing for the detection of invasive cervical cancers and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2010; 11(3): 249– 257. doi: 10.1016/ S1470‑ 2045(09)70360‑ 2.

14. 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.

15. 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.

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

17. Cohen JT, Neumann PJ, Weinstein MC. Does preventive care save money? Health economics and the presidential candidates. New Engl J Med 2008; 358(7): 661– 663. doi: 10.1056/ NEJMp0708558.

18. Shankaran V, Luu TH, Nonzee N et al. Costs and cost effectiveness of a health care provider‑ directed intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27(32): 5370– 5375. doi: 10.1200/ JCO.2008.20.6458.

19. Mittendorf T, Petry KU, Iftner T et al. Economic evaluation of human papillomavirus screening in Germany. Eur J Health Econ 2003; 4(3): 209– 215.

20. Chirikos TN, Christman LK, Hunter S et al. Cost‑effectiveness of an intervention to increase cancer screening in primary care settings. Prev Med 2004; 39(2): 230– 238.

21. De Koning HJ. Breast cancer screening; cost‑effective in practice? Eur J Radiol 2000; 33(1): 32– 37.

22. Miller AB, Wall C, Baines CJ et al. Twenty five year follow‑up for breast cancer incidence and mortality of the Canadian National Breast Screening Study: randomised screening trial. BMJ 2014; 348: g366. doi: 10.1136/ bmj.g366.

23. Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ et al. Canadian National Breast Screening Study‑ 2: 13‑year results of a randomized trial in women aged 50– 59 years. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92(18): 1490– 1499.

24. Pavlík T, Májek O, Büchler 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.

25. De Angelis R, Sant M, Coleman MP et al. Cancer survival in Europe 1999– 2007 by country and age: results of EUROCARE‑ 5 – a population‑based study. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15(1): 23– 34. doi: 10.1016/ S1470‑ 2045(13)70546‑ 1.

26. Wishart GC, Greenberg DC, Britton PD et al. Screen‑ detected vs symptomatic breast cancer: is improved survival due to stage migration alone? Br J Cancer 2008; 98(11): 1741– 1744. doi: 10.1038/ sj.bjc.6604368.

27. 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.

28. EUnetHTA. Final Technical Report. European Network for Health Technology Assessment. National Board of Health of Denmark, Danish Centre for Health Technology Assessment (DACEHTA) 2009. Available from: http:/ / ec.europa.eu/ health/ ph_systems/ docs/ eunethta_report_en.pdf.

29. World Health Organization. Making choices in health: WHO guide to cost‑effectiveness analysis. Geneva: WHO Press 2003.

30. Berrino F, Capocaccia R, Coleman MP et al. Survival of cancer patients in Europe: the EUROCARE‑ 3 Study. Ann Oncol 2003; 14 (Suppl 5): 1– 155.

31. Berrino F, De Angelis R, Sant M et al. Survival for eight major cancers and all cancers combined for European adults diagnosed in 1995– 99: results of the EUROCARE‑ 4 study. Lancet Oncology 2007; 8(9): 773– 783.

32. Coleman MP, Quaresma M, Berrino F et al. Cancer survival in five continents: a worldwide population‑based study (CONCORD). Lancet Oncology 2008, 9(8): 730– 756. doi: 10.1016/ S1470‑ 2045(08)70179‑ 7.

33. Organisation for Economic Co‑ operation and Development. Health at a Glance 2009: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing 2009.

34. Organisation for Economic Co‑ operation and Development: Health at a Glance: Europe 2010. Paris: OECD Publishing 2010.

35. Organisation for Economic Co‑ operation and Development: Health at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing 2011.

36. 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.

37. 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.

38. Poc P, Brepoels F, Busoi CC et al. Written declaration on fighting colorectal cancer in the European Union. The European Parliament, PE449.546v01– 00. 20. 12. 2010.

39. Dušek L (ed.). Czech Cancer Care in Numbers 2008– 2009. Praha: Grada Publishing 2009.

40. Organisation for Economic Co‑ operation and Development. Health at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing 2013.