File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Workgroup II: The screening process. UICC International Workshop on Facilitating Screening for Colorectal Cancer, Oslo, Norway (29 and 30 June 2002)

TitleWorkgroup II: The screening process. UICC International Workshop on Facilitating Screening for Colorectal Cancer, Oslo, Norway (29 and 30 June 2002)
Authors
Issue Date2005
PublisherOxford University Press. The Journal's web site is located at http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/
Citation
Annals Of Oncology, 2005, v. 16 n. 1, p. 31-33 How to Cite?
AbstractThe burden of colorectal cancer is high worldwide, and is increasing in many countries. It has the highest incidence of all digestive cancers worldwide, high mortality rates and a high cost to the community. Organized screening programs could significantly reduce mortality from colorectal cancer. Several highly effective screening strategies to achieve this goal are available today [1, 4, 5]. These screening strategies should be implemented within organized programs where possible in order to stimulate an increased awareness among the public and providers of the burden of the disease and the potential to reduce this burden through effective screening, diagnosis and treatment. When organized screening is not possible, opportunistic screening in the community should be encouraged within the framework of available resources and guidelines. In either instance, a large effort on the part of multidisciplinary groups including providers, public advocacy groups, the media and industry is required. In order to reduce the burden of colorectal cancer, numerous issues related to the choice of public health strategies need to be resolved. Is colorectal cancer screening better delivered in 'stand alone' settings or co-located in comprehensive centers with other cancer screening programs (e.g. Pap smear, mammography)? Can we develop an international terminology for describing the quality and effectiveness of screening programs? How do we maximize participation rates in the face of multiple colorectal cancer screening strategies, and different cultural orientations to the variety of testing strategies? What is the potential of emerging technologies? On a worldwide basis, the efforts and commitments of national and international organizations should be integrated with global initiatives already under way, such as those supported by the International Digestive Cancer Alliance. This Alliance was founded by the World Organization of Gastroenterology (OMGE), OMED, the United European Gastroenterology Federation (UEGF), European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the Cancer Research and Prevention Foundation (CRPF). Recently its mission and campaign goals were outlined at a meeting at the Vatican in Rome, and a preliminary report of the meeting published in the OMGE/OMED newsletter. Finally, where screening is available, people aged over 50 years should be encouraged to act now, to discuss testing with their health-care provider and to be screened for colorectal cancer. The best test is the one that gets done, and any screening modality is better than none. The tendency for procrastination, i.e. to postpone action in anticipation of future, more promising technology that is more attractive, must be discouraged. In the world, approximately 2000 people will die every day from this disease. Strategies available today can cut this death toll in half. © 2005 European Society for Medical Oncology.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/162848
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 9.269
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 4.362
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWinawer, Sen_US
dc.contributor.authorFaivre, Jen_US
dc.contributor.authorSelby, Jen_US
dc.contributor.authorBertaro, Len_US
dc.contributor.authorChen, THHen_US
dc.contributor.authorKroborg, Oen_US
dc.contributor.authorLevin, Ben_US
dc.contributor.authorMandel, Jen_US
dc.contributor.authorO'morain, Cen_US
dc.contributor.authorRichards, Men_US
dc.contributor.authorRennert, Gen_US
dc.contributor.authorRusso, Aen_US
dc.contributor.authorSaito, Hen_US
dc.contributor.authorSemigfnovsky, Ben_US
dc.contributor.authorWong, Ben_US
dc.contributor.authorSmith, Ren_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-09-05T05:24:19Z-
dc.date.available2012-09-05T05:24:19Z-
dc.date.issued2005en_US
dc.identifier.citationAnnals Of Oncology, 2005, v. 16 n. 1, p. 31-33en_US
dc.identifier.issn0923-7534en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/162848-
dc.description.abstractThe burden of colorectal cancer is high worldwide, and is increasing in many countries. It has the highest incidence of all digestive cancers worldwide, high mortality rates and a high cost to the community. Organized screening programs could significantly reduce mortality from colorectal cancer. Several highly effective screening strategies to achieve this goal are available today [1, 4, 5]. These screening strategies should be implemented within organized programs where possible in order to stimulate an increased awareness among the public and providers of the burden of the disease and the potential to reduce this burden through effective screening, diagnosis and treatment. When organized screening is not possible, opportunistic screening in the community should be encouraged within the framework of available resources and guidelines. In either instance, a large effort on the part of multidisciplinary groups including providers, public advocacy groups, the media and industry is required. In order to reduce the burden of colorectal cancer, numerous issues related to the choice of public health strategies need to be resolved. Is colorectal cancer screening better delivered in 'stand alone' settings or co-located in comprehensive centers with other cancer screening programs (e.g. Pap smear, mammography)? Can we develop an international terminology for describing the quality and effectiveness of screening programs? How do we maximize participation rates in the face of multiple colorectal cancer screening strategies, and different cultural orientations to the variety of testing strategies? What is the potential of emerging technologies? On a worldwide basis, the efforts and commitments of national and international organizations should be integrated with global initiatives already under way, such as those supported by the International Digestive Cancer Alliance. This Alliance was founded by the World Organization of Gastroenterology (OMGE), OMED, the United European Gastroenterology Federation (UEGF), European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the Cancer Research and Prevention Foundation (CRPF). Recently its mission and campaign goals were outlined at a meeting at the Vatican in Rome, and a preliminary report of the meeting published in the OMGE/OMED newsletter. Finally, where screening is available, people aged over 50 years should be encouraged to act now, to discuss testing with their health-care provider and to be screened for colorectal cancer. The best test is the one that gets done, and any screening modality is better than none. The tendency for procrastination, i.e. to postpone action in anticipation of future, more promising technology that is more attractive, must be discouraged. In the world, approximately 2000 people will die every day from this disease. Strategies available today can cut this death toll in half. © 2005 European Society for Medical Oncology.en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherOxford University Press. The Journal's web site is located at http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/en_US
dc.relation.ispartofAnnals of Oncologyen_US
dc.rightsAnnals of oncology. Copyright © Oxford University Press.-
dc.subject.meshColorectal Neoplasms - Diagnosisen_US
dc.subject.meshHumansen_US
dc.subject.meshInternational Cooperationen_US
dc.subject.meshMass Screeningen_US
dc.subject.meshPractice Guidelines As Topicen_US
dc.subject.meshPublic Healthen_US
dc.titleWorkgroup II: The screening process. UICC International Workshop on Facilitating Screening for Colorectal Cancer, Oslo, Norway (29 and 30 June 2002)en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailWong, B:bcywong@hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authorityWong, B=rp00429en_US
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltexten_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/annonc/mdi029en_US
dc.identifier.pmid15598933-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-19944429090en_US
dc.identifier.hkuros117708-
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-19944429090&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_US
dc.identifier.volume16en_US
dc.identifier.issue1en_US
dc.identifier.spage31en_US
dc.identifier.epage33en_US
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000226153400008-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridWinawer, S=7102405635en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridFaivre, J=7202044406en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridSelby, J=7103287902en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridBertaro, L=6504298263en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridChen, THH=8049077000en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridKroborg, O=16637515100en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLevin, B=26643320500en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridMandel, J=7202543649en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridO'Morain, C=7101876350en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridRichards, M=35401569600en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridRennert, G=7005198718en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridRusso, A=7402518728en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridSaito, H=36049051700en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridSemigfnovsky, B=16640246800en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridWong, B=7402023340en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridSmith, R=35397840000en_US
dc.identifier.citeulike75637-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats