Search

Background This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a biennial faecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening programme in reducing annual colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence in its dynamic target population. Methods The target population included over 1,000,000 persons aged 50–69 living in a region of northern Italy. The average annual response rate to invitation was 51.4%. Each observed annual age-standardised (Europe) rate per 100,000 persons between 2005, the year of introduction of the programme, and 2016 was compared with each expected annual rate as estimated with age-period-cohort (men) and age-period (women) models. Results For both sexes, the rates observed in 1997–2004 and those expected in 2005–2016 were stable. Observed rates increased in 2005, peaked in 2006 (the first full year of screening), dropped significantly below the expected level in 2009, and continued to decrease until 2013 (the eighth full year), after which no further significant changes occurred. In the pooled years 2013–2016, the observed incidence rate per 100,000 persons was 102.2 [95% CI: 97.4, 107.1] for men, 75.6 [95% CI: 71.6, 79.7] for women and 88.4 [95% CI: 85.3, 91.5] for both sexes combined, with an observed:expected incidence rate ratio of 0.68 [95% CI: 0.65, 0.71], 0.79 [95% CI: 0.76, 0.82] and 0.72 [95% CI: 0.66, 0.81], respectively. Discussion The study provided multiple consistent proofs of a causal relationship between the introduction of screening and a stable 28% decrease in annual CRC incidence after eight years.

(1) Background: This population-based study aimed at identifying the factors associated with the likelihood of detection of stage IA cervical carcinoma—versus the detection of stage IB through IV cervical carcinoma—and the patterns of surgical treatment. (2) Methods: Between 1995–2016, 3750 patients living in the Emilia-Romagna Region (northern Italy) were registered with cervical carcinoma, including 2942 eligible patients (median age, 53). Multivariate analysis was performed using binary logistic regression models. (3) Results: The likelihood of stage IA cervical carcinoma (n = 876, 29.8%) did not change over time, decreased with increasing patient age, and was lower for patients with adenocarcinoma and grade 3–4 disease. Three hundred and fifty (40.0%) patients had a conservative treatment, 317 (36.2%) had hysterectomy, 197 (22.5%) had hysterectomy with lymph node dissection (LND), and 12 (1.4%) had a conservative treatment with LND. The proportion of hysterectomy decreased from 70.6% in 1995–1999 to 46.9% in 2011–2016. The likelihood of hysterectomy increased above the age of 40. Among screening-aged (25–64 years) patients, the likelihood of hysterectomy did not differ between screen-detected and non-screen-detected ones. Hysterectomy was increasingly combined with LND. High tumour grade was the strongest determinant of LND during hysterectomy. (4) Conclusions: This study provided a multifaceted overview of stage IA cervical carcinoma over the last decades.

The European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer recommendation for triennial screening of women aged 70–74 is based on very weak evidence. A cohort of Italian women who had their last biennial screening mammography at age 68–69 was followed up for 5 years, assumed to represent the interval to another hypothetical screening mammography, in order to determine the annual proportional incidence of interval breast cancer. The cohort included 118,370 women. They had their last mammography between 1997 and 2008. Incident breast cancers were identified by record-linking the cohort with the regional breast cancer registry. The expected incidence in the age range 65–74 was estimated with an age-period-cohort model. The number of interval cancers was divided by the expected number to obtain their proportional incidence. Overall, there were 298,658 woman-years at risk with 371 interval cancers versus 988.8 expected. In the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth interval year, the proportional incidence was 0.09 (95% confidence interval, 0.06–0.13), 0.32 (0.25–0.39), 0.60 (0.49–0.73), 0.75 (0.60–0.92), and 0.81 (0.60–1.07), respectively. Between the second and the fifth year, tumour stage and molecular subtype did not change significantly. Though not supported by these findings, the proposal of triennial screening for women aged 70–74 merits further research, because the 95% confidence interval of the third-year proportional incidence of interval cancer included 0.50—the maximum limit considered acceptable for women aged 50–69. • The third-year incidence of breast cancer relative to the expected one was 0.60 (95% confidence interval, 0.49–0.73). • Between the second and the fifth year, tumour stage and molecular subtype did not change significantly (p >0.10). • The proposal of a 3-year screening interval at age 70–74 merits further evaluation.