The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Status of implementation and organization of cancer screening in The European Union Member States—Summary results from the second European screening report
Open accessAbstract
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 = 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 population‐based 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.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Current cancer situation in China: good or bad news from the 2018 Global Cancer Statistics?
Feng, R., Zong, Y., Cao, S., & Xu, R. (2019) · Cancer Communications · doi:10.1186/s40880-019-0368-6 · Cited by 1,625
Qiu, H., Cao, S., & Xu, R. (2021) · Cancer Communications · doi:10.1002/cac2.12197 · Cited by 1,015
Effect of Colonoscopy Screening on Risks of Colorectal Cancer and Related Death
Bretthauer, M., Løberg, M., Wieszczy, P., Kalager, M., Emilsson, L., Garborg, K., Rupinski, M., Dekker, E., Spaander, M., Bugajski, M., et al. (2022) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2208375 · Cited by 817
Burnett-Hartman, A. N., Lee, J. K., Demb, J., & Gupta, S. (2021) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2020.12.068 · Cited by 298
Chrysostomou, A. C., Stylianou, D. C., Constantinidou, A., & Kostrikis, L. G. (2018) · Viruses · doi:10.3390/v10120729 · Cited by 258
Metadata
- Authors
- Basu, P., Ponti, A., Anttila, A., Ronco, G., Senore, C., Vale, D. B., Segnan, N., Tomatis, M., Soerjomataram, I., Primic Žakelj, M., Dillner, J., Elfström, K. M., Lönnberg, S., & Sankaranarayanan, R.
- Venue
- International Journal of Cancer
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2017-10-10
- Volume
- 142
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 44-56
- ISSN
- 0020-7136 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0215
- OpenAlex
- W2759655344
- Cited by
- 251
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Status of implementation and organization of cancer screening in The European Union Member States—Summary results from the second European screening report. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/ijc.31043
- The paper
- Basu, P., Ponti, A., Anttila, A., Ronco, G., Senore, C., Vale, D. B., Segnan, N., Tomatis, M., Soerjomataram, I., Primic Žakelj, M., Dillner, J., Elfström, K. M., Lönnberg, S., & Sankaranarayanan, R. (2018). Status of implementation and organization of cancer screening in The European Union Member States—Summary results from the second European screening report. International Journal of Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.31043
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.