Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 30, No. 3, 2012
Issue release date: June 2012

Isolated Colorectal Cancer Screening or Integrated Cancer Prevention? A Provocative Suggestion!

Stockbrugger R.
To view the fulltext, log in and/or choose pay-per-view option

Individual Users: Register with Karger Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password





Contact Information











I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is still not fully established in the European Union. Recently, the United European Gastroenterology Federation (UEGF) supported CRC screening with the publication of quality guidelines and a written declaration in the European Parliament in favor of European-wide monitored CRC screening and primary prevention of CRC, the latter particularly in young citizens. In this article, the need for population-based CRC screening is once again stressed. In addition, the value of opportunistic CRC screening is pointed out, either as a regional or nation-wide alternative (such as in the USA and Germany) or as a ‘forerunner’ activity in view of subsequent population-based CRC screening. With regard to other parallel organ-related screening activities in Europe (breast, uterus) and the increasing need for primary prevention of malignant and benign diseases, the question is raised as to whether preventive activities should not be recognized as an integrated and logical part of a ‘healthcare chain’ offered to all European citizens.



Copyright / Drug Dosage

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

References

  1. Armbrecht U, et al: Acceptance and outcome of endoscopic screening for colonic neoplasia in patients undergoing clinical rehabilitation for gastrointestinal and metabolic diseases. Z Gastroenterol 1993;32:3–7.

    External Resources

  2. Pye G, Hardcastle JD: Screening for colorectal neoplasia. Practitioner 1987;231:183–187.
  3. Rex DK, et al: Screening colonoscopy in asymptomatic average-risk persons with negative fecal occult blood tests. Gastroenterology 1991;100:64–67.
  4. Winawer SJ, et al: Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. N Engl J Med 1993;329:1977–1981.
  5. Winawer SJ, et al: Randomized comparison of surveillance intervals after colonoscopic removal of newly diagnosed adenomatous polyps. N Engl J Med 1993;328:901–906.
  6. Hoff GS, et al: Risk of colorectal cancer seven years after flexible sigmoidoscopy screening: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2009;338:b1846.

    External Resources

  7. Brevinge H, et al: Screening for colorectal neoplasia with faecal occult blood testing compared with flexible sigmoidoscopy directly in a 55–56 years’ old population. Int J Colorect Dis 1997;12:291–295.
  8. Patnick J, Segnan N, von Karsa L: European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Colorectal Cancer Screening. Lyon, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2010.
  9. European Parliament: Written Declaration 0068/2010: Fighting colorectal cancer in the European Union. 2010. www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+WDECL+P7-DCL-2010-0068-+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN.
  10. Huppe D, et al: Effectiveness of screening colonoscopy in a community-based study (in German). Z Gastroenterol 2008;46:193–200.
  11. Sieg A, Brenner H: Cost-saving analysis of screening colonoscopy in Germany. Z Gastroenterol 2007;45:945–951.
  12. Ott JJ, et al: Global cancer and mortality caused by behaviour and infection. J Public Health (Oxf) 2011;33:223–233.


Pay-per-View Options
Direct payment This item at the regular price: USD 33.00
Payment from account With a Karger Pay-per-View account (down payment USD 150) you profit from a special rate for this and other single items.
This item at the discounted price: USD 23.00