Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Evaluation of the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening intervention

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Cancer Causes & Control Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The effectiveness of the Colorectal Cancer (CRC) screening program is assessed based on the reduction in CRC mortality and incidence rates over time. To accurately estimate the long-term impact, it is advisable to monitor additional indicators such as age and stage-specific incidence rates. Our objective is to evaluate the effectiveness of the National CRC Screening Program in Turkey and analyze its influence on disease stage at diagnosis and survival rates.

Methods

The National CRC Screening Program was considered an intervention and the distribution of local, regional, and distant diseases, and survival estimates were assessed before and after the intervention to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention.

Results

518 patients were included in the study. At the time of diagnosis, localized, regional, and distant disease in pre-intervention were 31.3%, 42.9%, 25.8%, while post-intervention were 42.8%, 33.3%, 23.9%, respectively (p = 0.020). The relative effectiveness of the intervention in males, females, and 50–70 ages were calculated as 1.2[95% CI 0.95–1.73], 1.5[95% CI 1.04–2.18], and 1.6[95% CI 1.21–2.28] in localized disease, 0.8[95% CI 0.67–1.18], 0.6[95% CI 0.43–0.90], and 0.6[95% CI 0.46–0.81] in regional diseases, 0.8[95% CI 0.57–1.20], 1.1[95% CI 0.66–1.84], and 1.0[95% CI 0.70–1.57] in distant disease, respectively.

Conclusion

A noticeable shift in the disease stage at the time of diagnosis was observed; however, this shift varied among gender and age groups. To effectively evaluate the impact of a cancer screening program on reducing the incidence and mortality rates of the disease, it is essential to monitor and analyze these indicators alongside 5–10-year survival estimates and stage changes at the time of diagnosis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The original data of this study were obtained from the archive of the Medical Oncology Clinic of Kartal Dr. Lütfi Kırdar City Hospital, Ministry of Health, Republic of Turkey, by the investigators following the approval of all relevant ethics committees. Further information is available from the corresponding author upon request.

References

  1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, Bray F (2021) Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 71(3):209–249. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. T.R. Ministry of Health General Directorate of Public Health (2021) Turkey cancer statistics 2017. https://hsgm.saglik.gov.tr/tr/kanser-istatistikleri/yillar/2017-turkiye-kanser-i-statistikleri.html

  3. World Health Organization, Internacional Agency for Research on Cancer. Turkey Fact Sheet: GLOBACAN 2020. https://gco.iarc.fr/today/data/factsheets/populations/792-turkey-fact-sheets.pdf

  4. Øines M, Helsingen LM, Bretthauer M, Emilsson L (2017) Epidemiology and risk factors of colorectal polyps. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 31(4):419–424

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. American Cancer Society (2020) Colorectal Cancer Facts & Figures 2020–2022. https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/colorectal-cancer-facts-and-figures/colorectal-cancer-facts-and-figures-2020-2022.pdf

  6. World Health Organization, Geneva (2017) Guide to cancer early diagnosis. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/254500

  7. Segnan N, Patnick J, Karsa LV (2010) European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis, first edition, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. https://www.stopdarmkanker.be/BOEKJE/boekEU.pdf

  8. T.R. Ministry of Health General Directorate of Public Health, Department of Cancer (2016) Turkey Cancer Control Program. https://hsgm.saglik.gov.tr/depo/birimler/kanser-db/yayinlar/raporlar/Ulusal_Kanser_Kontrol_Plani_2013_2018.pdf

  9. T.R. Ministry of Health General Directorate of Public Health, Department of Cancer (2021) Turkey Cancer Control Program. https://hsgm.saglik.gov.tr/depo/birimler/kanser-db/yayinlar/raporlar/2021_Kanser_Kontrol_Programi_/Turkey_NCCP_18_April_2022.pdf

  10. T.R. Ministry of Health General Directorate of Treatment Services (2010) Turkey Oncology Services Restructuring Program 2010–2023. https://www.kanser.org/saglik/userfiles/file/11Mayis2011/turkiye_onkoloji_hizmetleri_kitapcik.pdf

  11. Guner AE, Surmeli A, Turan G, Kural K, Simsek EE, Maral I (2022) A large-scale pilot breast cancer screening program: findings and recommendations for National Screening Programs. Med Bull Haseki/Haseki Tip Bulteni. https://doi.org/10.4274/haseki.galenos.2021.7793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ding H, Lin J, Xu Z, Chen X, Wang HHX, Huang L, Huang J, Zheng Z, Wong MCS (2022) A global evaluation of the performance indicators of colorectal cancer screening with fecal immunochemical tests and colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancers 14(4):1073. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14041073

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Guimarães DP, Mantuan LA, de Oliveira MA, Junior RL, Costa AMD, Rossi S, Fava G, Taveira LN, Giardina KM, Talarico T, Costa M, Scapulatempo-Neto C, Matsushita MM, Véo CA, Fregnani JHT, Reis RM, Hawk ET, Mauad EC (2021) The performance of colorectal cancer screening in Brazil: The first two years of the implementation program in Barretos Cancer Hospital. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 14(2):241–252. https://doi.org/10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-20-017)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe (2017) Turkey Household Health Survey: prevalence of risk factors for noncommunicable diseases. https://hsgm.saglik.gov.tr/depo/birimler/kronik-hastaliklar-engelli-db/hastaliklar/kalpvedamar/raporlar/turkey-risk-factors-tur_STEPS-2017.pdf

  15. Özdemir R, Turkmen Çevik F, Kes D, Karacali M, Özguner S (2020) Level and factors associated with participation in population-based cancer screening in Safranbolu District of Karabuk, Turkey. Iran J Public Health 49(4):663–672

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Tuncez IH, Aksoy N, Koc M (2021) Ulusal kanser tarama programı Sonuçları; Bir İl Örneği. Phnx Med J 3(2):69–73. https://doi.org/10.38175/phnx.922780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bakar C, Oymak S, Maral I (2017) Turkey’s epidemiological and demographic transitions: 1931–2013. Balkan Med J 34(4):323–334

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. T.R. Ministry of Health General Directorate of Public Health, Department of Cancer. Cancer Department Evaluation Reports, Colorectal Cancer Screenings. https://hsgmdestek.saglik.gov.tr/depo/birimler/kanser-db/yayinlar/raporlar/kolorektal.pdf

  19. Levin TR, Corley DA, Jensen CD, Schottinger JE, Quinn VP, Zauber AG, Lee JK, Zhao WK, Udaltsova N, Ghai NR, Lee AT, Quesenberry CP, Fireman BH, Doubeni CA (2018) Effects of organized colorectal cancer screening on cancer incidence and mortality in a large community-based population. Gastroenterology 155(5):1383-1391.e5. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2018.07.017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Navarro M, Nicolas A, Ferrandez A, Lanas A (2017) Colorectal cancer population screening programs worldwide in 2016: an update. World J Gastroenterol 23(20):3632–3642. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v23.i20.3632

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Binefa G, Garcia M, Milà N, Fernández E, Rodríguez-Moranta F, Gonzalo N, Benito L, Clopés A, Guardiola J, Moreno V (2016) Colorectal Cancer Screening Programme in Spain: results of key performance indicators after five rounds (2000–2012). Sci Rep 20(6):19532. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep19532

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. von Wagner C, Baio G, Raine R, Snowball J, Morris S, Atkin W, Obichere A, Handley G, Logan RF, Rainbow S, Smith S, Halloran S, Wardle J (2011) Inequalities in participation in an organized national colorectal cancer screening programme: results from the first 2.6 million invitations in England. Int J Epidemiol 40(3):712–718. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyr008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Logan RF, Patnick J, Nickerson C, Coleman L, Rutter MD, von Wagner C, Committee EBCSE (2012) Outcomes of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in England after the first 1 million tests. Gut 61(10):1439–1446. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2011-300843

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Senore C, Basu P, Anttila A, Ponti A, Tomatis M, Vale DB, Ronco G, Soerjomataram I, Primic-Žakelj M, Riggi E, Dillner J, Elfström MK, Lönnberg S, Sankaranarayanan R, Segnan N (2019) Performance of colorectal cancer screening in the European Union Member States: data from the second European screening report. Gut 68(7):1232–1244. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2018-317293

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Neo EL, Beeke C, Price T, Maddern G, Karapetis C, Luke C, Roder D, Padbury R (2011) South Australian clinical registry for metastatic colorectal cancer. ANZ J Surg 81(5):352–357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-2197.2010.05589.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was obtained for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

GT: Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing, visualization, project administration; MT: Conceptualization, investigation, resources, data curation, writing—review and editing; HI: Conceptualization, methodology, writing—review and editing; MEY: Conceptualization, resources, writing—review and editing; MC: Conceptualization, methodology, writing—review and editing; IM: Conceptualization, methodology, writing—review and editing, supervision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guven Turan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no potential conficts of interest in the research, authorship and publication of this article.

Ethical approval

This study received ethical approval from the Turkish Ministry of Health, Istanbul Medeniyet University Goztepe Training and Research Hospital Clinical Research Ethics Committee (Approval No. 2021/0066) on January 27, 2021.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Turan, G., Turan, M., Ikiisik, H. et al. Evaluation of the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening intervention. Cancer Causes Control 35, 761–769 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-023-01839-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-023-01839-z

Keywords

Navigation