State and Development of Background Information for the Evaluation of Czech Cancer Screening Programmes
Authors:
L. Dušek 1,2; O. Májek 1,2; D. Klimeš 1; M. Bláha 1,2; P. Brabec 1; J. Gregor 1
Authors‘ workplace:
Institut biostatistiky a analýz, LF a PřF MU, Brno
1; Ústav zdravotnických informací a statistiky ČR, Praha
2
Published in:
Klin Onkol 2014; 27(Supplementum 2): 49-58
doi:
https://doi.org/10.14735/amko20142S49
Overview
Czech cancer screening programmes feature a comprehensive multimodal information system which covers all the levels of assessment needed – population-based monitoring (Czech National Cancer Registry), monitoring of results in the diagnostic databases of centres, as well as the quantification of coverage and outputs of primary care according to the administrative data of health care payers. A system of personalised invitations to cancer screening programmes was launched in 2014, based on a stand-alone component of the information system which makes it possible to identify eligible clients in health care payers’ databases. The system was fully standardised and uniformly implemented in all health insurance companies; its functionalities also involve both continuous and retrospective assessment of the results of personalised invitation. The legislative framework in force will have to be applied and implemented for a more comprehensive and integrated employment of all involved data sources, i.e. cancer registries, screening registries, and administrative data. The system must be able to analyse de-identified individual records on clients’ participation in screening programmes, and thus to ensure an adequate analysis of performance indicators in compliance with international recommendations.
Key words:
screening – background information – monitoring – cancer – registry – data collection
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:
22. 10. 2014
Sources
1. 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.
2. de Koning HJ (ed.). The mysterious mass(es). Rotterdam: Erasmus MC 2009.
3. Harris R, Sawaya GF, Moyer VA et al. Reconsidering the criteria for evaluating proposed screening programs: reflections from 4 current and former members of the U.S. Preventive services task force. Epidemiol Rev 2011; 33(1): 20– 35. doi: 10.1093/ epirev/ mxr005.
4. Prorok PC, Kramer BS, Gohagan JK. Screening theory and study design: the Basics. In: Kramer BS, Gohagan JK, Prorok PC (eds). Cancer screening – theory and practice. New York: Marcel Dekker 1999: 29– 53.
5. Frič P, Zavoral M, Dvořáková H et al. An adapted program of colorectal cancer screening – 7 years experience and cost‑benefit analysis. Hepatogastroenterology 1994; 41(5): 413– 416.
6. Lansdorp‑ Vogelaar I, Knudsen AB, Brenner H. Cost‑effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening – an overview. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2010; 24(4): 439– 449.
7. 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 EC 2006.
8. Arbyn M, Anttila A, Jordan J et al (eds). European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening. 2nd ed. Luxembourg: European Communities 2008.
9. Dušek L, Mužík J, Kubásek M et al (eds). Epidemiologie zhoubných nádorů v České republice [monograph on the Internet]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita; 2005 [citováno 30. srpna 2014]. Dostupný z: http:/ / www.svod.cz.
10. 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.
11. Zavoral M, Suchánek Š, Májek O et al. Populační screening kolorektálního karcinomu v České republice. Rozhl Chir 2009; 88(6): 292– 294.
12. 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.
13. Frič P, Zavoral M, Čekal J et al. Screening kolorektálního karcinomu v současném systému zdravotní péče. (Pražský projekt). Endoskopie 1999; 8(3): 39– 45.
14. Segnan N, Patnick J, von Karsa L (eds). European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. 1st ed. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the EC 2010.
15. Zavoral M, Suchanek S, Zavada F et al. Colorectal cancer screening in Europe. World J Gastroenterol 2009; 15(47): 5907– 5915.
16. Majek O, Danes J, Zavoral M et al. Czech national cancer screening programmes in 2010. Klin Onkol 2010; 23(5): 343– 353.
17. Pavlík T, Dušek L, Májek O et al. Five‑year survival rates of cancer patients in the Czech Republic. In: Dušek L et al (eds). Czech cancer care in numbers 2008– 2009. 1st ed. Praha: Grada Publishing 2009: 120– 157.
18. Pavlík T, Májek O, Mužík J et al. Estimating the number of colorectal cancer patients treated with anti‑tumour therapy in 2015: the analysis of the Czech National Cancer Registry. BMC Public Health 2012; 12: 117. doi: 10.1186/ 1471‑ 2458‑ 12‑ 117.
19. von Karsa L, Antilla A, Ronco G et al. Cancer screening in the European Union: report on the implementation of the council recommendation on cancer screening (first report). 1st ed. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the EC 2008.
20. Vainio H, Bianchini F (eds). IARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention. 7th ed. Breast Cancer Screening. 1st ed. Lyon: IARC Press 2002.
21. Mandel JS, Church TR, Bond JH et al. The effect of fecal occult‑blood screening on the incidence of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2000; 343(22): 1603– 1607.
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. Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O‘Brien MJ et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long‑term prevention of colorectal‑ cancer deaths. N Engl J Med 2012; 366(8): 687– 696. doi: 10.1056/ NEJMoa1100370.
24. Anttila A, Ponti A, Ronco G et al (eds). Interface of cancer registries with cancer screening programmes. Project Eurocourse 2010. Available from: http:/ / www.eurocourse.org.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. Karsa LV, 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.
28. Moss S, Ancelle‑ Park R, Brenner H. Evaluation and interpretation of screening outcomes. In: Segnan N, Patnick J, von Karsa L (eds). European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. 1st ed. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the EC 2010: 71– 102.
29. Hasman A. Care for records for care. Int J Biomed Comput 1996; 42(1– 2): 1– 7.
30. Cole L, Houston S. Integrating information technology with an outcomes management program. Crit Care Nurs Q 1997; 19(4): 71– 79.
31. Dick RS, Sheen RB (eds). The computer‑based patient record: an essential technology for health care. 1st ed. Washington, DC: National Academy Press 1991.
32. George SE, Warren JR. Statistical modelling of general practice medicine for computer assisted data entry in electronic medical record systems. Int J Med Inform 2000; 57(2– 3): 77– 89.
33. Whitman GR. Outcomes research: getting started, defining outcomes, a framework, and data sources. Crit Care Nurs Clin North Am 2002; 14(3): 261– 268.
34. Ginsburg GS, McCarthy JJ. Personalized medicine: revolutionizing drug discovery and patient care. Trends Biotechnol 2001; 19(12): 491– 496.
35. Wilson IB, Cleary PD. Linking clinical variables with health‑related quality of life. A conceptual model of patient outcomes. JAMA 1995; 273(1): 59– 65.
36. Allison M. Is personalized medicine finally arriving? Nat Biotechnol 2008; 26(5): 509– 517. doi: 10.1038/ nbt0508‑ 509.
Labels
Paediatric clinical oncology Surgery Clinical oncologyArticle was published in
Clinical Oncology
2014 Issue Supplementum 2
Most read in this issue
- Performance Indicators in Screening Programmes
- Results of the Czech National Cervical Cancer Screening Programme
- Results of the Czech National Breast Cancer Screening Programme
- Epidemiology of Screening‑ targeted Cancers According to New Data of the Czech National Cancer Registry