Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 251

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 access
Basu, Partha, Ponti, Antonio, Anttila, Ahti, Ronco, Guglielmo, Senore, Carlo, Vale, Diama Bhadra, Segnan, Nereo, Tomatis, Mariano, Soerjomataram, Isabelle, Primic Žakelj, Maja, Dillner, Joakim, Elfström, Klara Miriam, Lönnberg, Stefan, Sankaranarayanan, Rengaswamy·2018·International Journal of Cancer

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ijc.31043

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 251

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.