Cancer screening in the world and in Turkey: colorectal cancer, breast and cervical cancers

Öz

Cancer is the uncontrollable growth and proliferation of cells that can affect any tissue in the body and is the leading cause of death worldwide. It has been determined that more than 40% of new cancer cases are lung, breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers. It has been shown that more than half of cancer-related deaths are caused by lung, breast, stomach, liver, and colorectal cancers. In parallel with the increase in cancer cases, expenditures on cancer worldwide are increasing significantly. Cancer causes significant increases in national health expenditures in most developed countries. Screening programs offer important opportunities in the early diagnosis of cancer and the prevention of cancer-related deaths. Since cancer screenings are community-based, the most important criterion for effective results is to run a program that reaches 70% of the target population, but community participation in the National Screening Programs developed in Turkey is around 20%–40%. Increasing awareness in society about screening programs and ensuring regular screening of individuals at risk will contribute to reducing the burden of cancer.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• cancer
• screening programs
• survival

Dünya’da ve Türkiye’de kanser taraması: kolorektal kanser, meme ve serviks kanserleri

Öz

Kanser, hücrelerin, vücudun herhangi bir dokusunu etkileyebilecek şekilde kontrol edilemez büyümesi ve çoğalmasıdır ve tüm dünyada önde gelen ölüm nedenidir. Yeni kanser vakalarının %40’ından fazlasını akciğer, meme, kolorektal ve prostat kanserlerinin oluşturduğu belirlenmiştir. Kansere bağlı ölümlerin yarısından fazlasının ise akciğer, meme, mide, karaciğer ve kolorektal kanserlerinden kaynaklandığı ortaya konulmuştur. Kanser vakalarındaki artışa paralel olarak, dünya genelinde kansere yapılan harcamalar ciddi düzeyde artış göstermektedir. Kanser, gelişmiş ülkelerin çok büyük bir kısmında, ulusal sağlık harcamalarının ciddi biçimde artmasına neden olmaktadır. Tarama programları kanserin erken teşhisinde ve kanser kaynaklı ölümlerin önlenmesinde önemli fırsatlar sunmaktadır. Kanser taramalarının toplumsal tabanlı olması dolayısı ile etkili sonuçlar vermesi için en önemli kriter hedef nüfusun %70’ine ulaşan bir programın yürütülmesidir, ancak Türkiye’de geliştirilen Ulusal Tarama Programları’na toplum katılımı %20-%40 civarındadır. Tarama programları ile ilgili toplum genelinde farkındalığın artırılması, risk kapsamındaki bireylerin düzenli olarak taramalarının yapılması kanser hastalığının oluşturacağı yükün azalmasına katkı sağlayacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• kanser
• tarama programları
• sağ kalım

Kaynakça

1. Blakely T, Collinson L, Kvizhinadze G et al. Cancer care coordinators in stage III colon cancer: a cost-utility analysis. BMC Health Serv Res 2015; 15: 306-318.
2. Francisci S, Guzzinati S, Mezzetti M et al. Cost profiles of colorectal cancer patients in Italy based on individual patterns of care. BMC Cancer 2013; 13: 329-340.
3. Globocan. GLOBOCAN 2022: Estimated Cancer Incidence, Mortality and Prevalence Worldwide in 2012. Çevrimiçi: https://gco.iarc.who.int/media/globocan/factsheets/cancers/39-all-cancers-fact-sheet.pdf
4. Sağlık Bakanlığı. Türkiye Kanser Kontrol Programı. T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı Halk Sağlığı Genel Müdürlüğü 2021, Ankara.
5. i3Innovus. Türkiye’de Hastaların Kanser İlaçlarına Erişimi Raporu. 2009. Çevrimiçi: https://www.aifd.org.tr/Img/content_pictures/innovus/innovus.pdf.
6. Sağlık Bakanlığı. Sağlık İstatistikleri Yıllığı 2021. Sağlık Bakanlığı 2023, Ankara.
7. Ceilleachair A, Costello L, Finn C et al. Inter-relationships between the economic and emotional consequences of colorectal cancer for patients and their families: a qualitative study. BMC Gastroenterol 2012; 12: 62-72.
8. Ceilleachair A, Hanly P, Skally M et al. Cost comparisons and methodological heterogeneity in cost-of-illness studies: The example of colorectal cancer. Med Care 2013; 51: 339-350.

9. Haug U, Engel S, Verheyen F, Linder R. Estimating Colorectal Cancer Treatment Costs: A Pragmatic Approach Exemplified by Health Insurance Data from Germany. Plos ONE 2014; 9: 1-5.
10. Huang W, Liu G, Zhang X et al. Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening Protocols in Urban Chinese Populations. Plos ONE 2014; 9: e109150.
11. Kriza C, Emmert M, Wahlster P, Niederlander C, Kolominsky-Rabas P. Cost of illness in colorectal cancer: An international Review. PharmacoEconomics 2013; 31: 577-88.
12. Allaire BT, Ekwueme DU, Guy GP et al. Medical Care Costs of Breast Cancer in Privately Insured Women Aged 18-44 Years. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2016; 50: 270-7.
13. Costa Vieira RA, Biller G, Uemura G, Ruiz CA, Curado MP. Breast Cancer Screening in Developing Countries. Clinics 2017; 72: 244-53.
14. Davies EL, Bennett J, Matheson L, Brett J, Watson E. Shouldn’t We Know This Already? UK Women’s Views About Communicating the Link Between Alcohol Consumption and Risk of Breast Cancer. Health Commun 2023: 1-11.
15. Madadi M, Zhang S, Henderson LM. Evaluation of Breast Cancer Mammography Screening Policies Considering Adherence Behavior. Eur J Operational Res 2015; 247: 630-40.
16. Dizon DS, Ambrosio AJ, Feltmate C, Wright AA, Campos SM, Viswanathan A. Pushing the Bar in Treatment of Cervical Cancer: What can Comprehensive Cancer Centers Do on Their Own? Gynecol Oncol 2013; 131: 464-6.
17. Denson V, Keele R. Cervical Cancer Screening Practices of Volunteer Providers in Faith-Based Clinics. J Nurse Practitioners 2016; 12: 27-34.
18. Hang D, Yin Y, Han J et al. Analysis of Human Papillomavirus 16Variants and Risk for Cervical Cancer in Chinese Population. Virology 2016; 488: 156-161.
19. Lee JY, Kwon JS, Cohn DE et al. Treatment Strategies for Stage IB Cervical Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis from Korean, Canadian and US Perspectives. Gynecologic Oncology 2016; 140: 83-9.
20. Lin YJ, Fan LW, Tu YC. Perceived Risk of Human Papillomavirus Infection and Cervical Cancer among Adolescent Women in Taiwan. Asian Nurs Res 2016; 10: 45-50.
21. Selmouni F, Sauvaget C, Belakhel L, Lucas E, Khouchoua M, Sankaranarayanan R. Organization and Evaluation of a Pilot Cervical Cancer Screening Program in Morocco. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2016; 132: 25-8.
22. Subramanian S, Sankaranarayanan R, Esmy PO, Thulaseedharan JV, Swaminathan R, Thomas S. Clinical Trail to Implemenatation: Cost and Effectiveness Considerations for Scaling Up Cervical Cancer Screening in Low- and Middle- Income Countries. J Cancer Policy 2016; 7: 4-11.
23. Vicus D, Sutradhar R, Lu Y, Elit L, Kupets R, Paszat L. The Association Between Cervical Cancer Screening and Mortality from Cervical Cancer: A Population Based Case-Control Study. Gyneol Oncol 2014; 133: 176-1.
24. Viens LJ, Clouston S, Messina CR. Women’s Autonomy and Cervical Cancer Screening in the Lesotho Demographic and Health Survey 2009. Soc Sci Med 2016; 150: 23-30.
25. Garcia-Osogobio S, Tellez-Avila FI, Mendez N, Uribe-Esquivel M. Results of the First Program of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Mexico. Endoscopia 2015; 27: 59-63.
26. Joyce KM, McInerney NM, Waters PS, Sweeney KJ, Barry K, Kerin MJ. Symptomatic Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Multimodal Management in Women Aged 40 to 50 Years; Consequences of Current Mammographic Screening Programs. Clin Breast Cancer 2015; 15: 125-130.
27. Sağlık Bakanlığı. Türkiye’de Kanser Önleme ve Taramaları Kısa Raporu. Türkiye Halk Sağlığı Kurumu Kanser Daire Başkanlığı Değerlendirme Raporları 2014, Ankara.
28. Bento MJ, Gonçalves G, Aguiar A, Castro C, Veloso V, Rodrigues V. Performance Indicators Evaluation of The Population-Based Breast Cancer Screening Programme in Northern Portugal Using the European Guidelines. Cancer Epidemiol 2015; 39: 783-9.
29. Ekwueme DU, Allaire BT, Guy GG, Arnold S, Trogdon JG. Treatment Costs of Breast Cancer Among Younger Women Aged 19-44 Years Enrolled in Medicaid. Am J of Prev Med 2016; 50: 278-85.
30. Gocgun Y, Banjevic D, Taghipour S et al. Cost-Effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening Policies Using Simulation. The Breast 2015; 24: 440-8.
31. Hassett MJ, Elkin EB. What Does Breast Cancer Treatment Cost and What Is It Worth? Hematol OncolClin North Am 2013; 27: 829-41.
32. Ivanauskiene R, Domeikiene A, Kregzdyte R, Milasauskiene Z, Padaiga Z. The Cost of Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer in Lithuania, 2011. Medicina 2015; 51: 63-8.
33. Moshina N, Ursin G, Roman M, Sebuodegard S, Hofvind S. Positive Predictive Values by Mammographic Density and Screening Mode in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. Eur J Radiol 2016; 85: 248-54.
34. Natal C, Caicoya M, Prieto M, Tardon A. Breast Cancer Incidence Related with a Population-Based Screening Programme. Medicina Clinica 2015; 144: 156-60.
35. Ouedraogo S, Dabakuyo-Yonli TS, Amiel P, Dancourt V, Dumas A, Arveux P. Breast Cancer Screening Programmes: Challenging the Coexistence with Opportunistic Mammography. Patient Educ Couns 2014; 97:410-7.
36. Ozmen V, Dogru V, Ozmen T. Breast cancer in Turkey: Analysis of 20.000 patients with breast cancer. Eur J Breast Health 2019; 15: 141-6.
37. Inotai A, Abonyi-Tóth Z, Rokszin G, Vokó Z. Prognosis, Cost, and Occurrence of Colorectal, Lung, Breast, and Prostate Cancer in Hungary. Value Health Reg Issues 2015; 7: 1-8.