% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Ola:289944,
author = {I. Ola$^*$ and R. Cardoso$^*$ and M. Hoffmeister$^*$ and H.
Brenner$^*$},
title = {{U}tilization of colorectal cancer screening tests across
{E}uropean countries: a cross-sectional analysis of the
{E}uropean health interview survey 2018–2020},
journal = {The lancet / Regional health. Europe},
volume = {41},
issn = {2666-7762},
address = {[Amsterdam]},
publisher = {Elsevier},
reportid = {DKFZ-2024-00926},
pages = {100920},
year = {2024},
note = {#EA:C070#LA:C070#LA:C120#},
abstract = {Background:Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has been shown
to reduce CRC incidence and mortality, and most European
countries have started to implement CRC screening programs
in the past 20 years. Consequently, this study aimed to
estimate the utilization of fecal tests and colonoscopy, as
well as investigate factors associated with their
utilization based on specific screening program
characteristics in European countries.Methods:We analyzed
data from the European Health Interview Survey 2018–2020
to determine the utilization of fecal tests [guaiac-based
fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) or fecal immunochemical test
(FIT)] within the preceding 2 years or colonoscopy within
the preceding 10 years among people aged 50–74 years,
based on the type of screening offered in each country.
Using multivariable logistic regression and sub-group
meta-analysis, factors associated with screening use were
determined.Findings:The analyses included data from 129,750
respondents across 29 European countries, with participant
counts ranging from 1511 individuals in Iceland to 11,755
individuals in Germany. Unit response rates ranged from
$22\%$ to $88\%.$ The use of either test was highest among
countries with fully rolled-out programs with fecal tests
[from $37.7\%$ (867/2379) in Croatia to $74.9\%$ (2321/3085)
in Denmark] and in countries offering colonoscopy as an
alternative screening method [from $26.2\%$ (854/3329) in
Greece to $75.4\%$ (1192/1760) in Luxembourg]. We observed
the lowest utilization of either test in countries with no
program or small-scale programs $[6.3\%$ (195/3179) in
Bulgaria to $34.2\%$ (722/2144) in Latvia]. Across all types
of screening offers, younger age, being without a partner,
low education, rural residence, and living in large
households were associated with lower utilization, as were
poor lifestyle scores and prolonged periods without
physician consultation.Interpretation:Our findings point to
large disparities and much room for improvement in CRC
screening offers and utilization across Europe.},
cin = {C070 / C120 / HD01},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)C070-20160331 / I:(DE-He78)C120-20160331 /
I:(DE-He78)HD01-20160331},
pnm = {313 - Krebsrisikofaktoren und Prävention (POF4-313)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-313},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
doi = {10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.100920},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/289944},
}