There is a strong scientific basis for introducing life-saving screening programmes in EU member states for both lung cancer and prostate cancer, according to experts advising the European Commission ahead of an expected update to the Council’s cancer screening guidelines.

In a comprehensive evidence review published today, SAPEA – part of the Commission’s Scientific Advice Mechanism – also evaluates improvements to existing screening programmes for cervical cancer, breast cancer and colorectal cancer — by adopting new technologies, expanding the age range of screening, and optimising how frequently people are screened depending on age, sex and previous test results.

Indeed, in the case of cervical cancer, a combination of improved screening and widespread HPV vaccination may even allow Europe to eradicate the disease entirely in coming years.

A comprehensive review of the evidence conducted by SAPEA, the consortium of European academies, also concludes that:

• There has been rapid progress in minimally invasive, novel screening technologies for detecting cancer at an early stage. For example, there is growing interest in the use of ‘liquid biopsy’ blood tests to detect multiple different types of cancer from the same sample. These are not yet ready for rollout, but they are evolving rapidly, so we should be ready to implement them when they are ready.

• Clinical trials are valuable, but they cannot tell us exactly what will happen when a nationwide screening programme is implemented in the real world. So any new programme should be rolled out gradually, using local small-scale pilots.

• The EU has a role in supporting public awareness campaigns, and in creating large-scale biobanks to improve future research.

• Once a programme is running, it needs to be continually monitored and adjusted to maintain quality. Standards, guidelines and screening criteria should be continually updated to take advantage of emerging evidence and new technologies, and the EU has a role in coordinating this. This would also allow countries to share experience and data, and to optimise the use of resources.

• Meanwhile, offering opportunistic screening tests outside of organised programmes — and to people with no symptoms — leads to poor quality and unequal access. This should be avoided.
  
  
  See Full Article