Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2020 Jul 1;147(1):9-13.
doi: 10.1002/ijc.32885. Epub 2020 Feb 26.

Key issues that need to be considered while revising the current annex of the European Council Recommendation (2003) on cancer screening

Affiliations
Review

Key issues that need to be considered while revising the current annex of the European Council Recommendation (2003) on cancer screening

Antonio Ponti et al. Int J Cancer. .

Abstract

The 2003 European Council recommendation urging the Member States to introduce or scale up breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening through an organized population-based approach has had a remarkable impact. We argue that the recommendation needs to be updated for at least two sets of reasons. First, some of the current clinical guidelines include new tests or protocols that were not available at the time of the Council document. Some have already been adopted by organized screening programs, such as newly defined age ranges for mammography screening, Human Papillomavirus (HPV)-based cervical cancer screening, fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and sigmoidoscopy for colorectal cancer screening. Second, the outcomes of randomized trials evaluating screening for lung and prostate cancer have been published recently and the balance between harms and benefits needs to be pragmatically assessed. In the European Union, research collaboration and networking to exchange and develop best practices should be regularly supported by the European Commission. Integration between primary and secondary preventive strategies through comprehensive approaches is necessary not only to maximize the reduction in cancer burden but also to control the rising trend of other noncommunicable diseases sharing the same risk factors.

Keywords: European Council; European Union; cancer screening.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. European Commission. Council recommendation of 2 December 2003 on cancer screening (2003/878/EC). Brussels: European Union, 2003. 5.
    1. Basu P, Ponti A, Anttila A, et al. Status of implementation and organization of cancer screening in the European Union member states-summary results from the second European screening report. Int J Cancer 2018;142:44-56.
    1. Andermann A, Blancquaert I, Beauchamp S, et al. Revisiting Wilson and Jungner in the genomic age: a review of screening criteria over the past 40 years. Bull World Health Organ 2008;86:317-9.
    1. Dobrow MJ, Hagens V, Chafe R, et al. Consolidated principles for screening based on a systematic review and consensus process. CMAJ 2018;190:E422-9.
    1. Dimitrova N, Saz Parkinson Z, Bramesfeld A, et al., eds. European guidelines for breast cancer screening and diagnosis-the European breast guidelines. Luxembourg: European Union, 2016. 32.