Search

Objectives The incidence of skin cancers, melanoma in particular, is increasing rapidly. Consequently, specific recommendations for sun-protection measures now exist. This survey set out to assess the compliance of the general population with these guidelines. Methods The French nationwide observational survey, EDIFICE Melanoma, was conducted (28 September to 20 October 2011) through phone interviews of a representative sample of 1502 subjects aged ≥ 18 years, using the quota method. Sun-protection was defined as frequent or systematic use of clothes or sunscreen. The group of individuals who declared exposure to the sun (N = 1172) was subdivided: risk-takers (N = 442), and those who used sun protection (N = 730). Results Risk-takers were significantly more often male (62% vs. 44%, P < 0.01), had a lower level of education (40% vs. 26%, P < 0.01), lower incomes (2587 euros vs. 2948 euros/month) and were more often smokers (42% vs. 31%, P < 0.01). In contrast, age, marital status and use of sunbeds were not significantly different between the two groups. Interestingly, risk-takers had less risk factors for melanoma. However, they were less well-informed about high-risk exposure and optimal use of sunscreen. Sun-protection measures for their children were less stringent than those of the group who used sun protection: systematic/frequent use of sunglasses (42% vs. 59%, P < 0.01), systematic use of sunscreen (77% vs. 86%, P < 0.01), and frequent renewal (69% vs. 82%, P < 0.01), high sun protection factors (SPF) (46% vs. 56%, P < 0.01), use of clothing (84% vs. 92%, P < 0.01) and hats (88% vs. 94%, P < 0.01). Conclusions Risk-takers are characterized by a lesser understanding of sun-protection measures and behaviours. Their children benefit less from protective measures than those of people who use sun protection themselves. Improved understanding may well improve behaviours; one can therefore legitimately predict a considerable impact on parents' attitude to their own protection and that of their children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: The detection of KRAS mutations is mandatory to initiate an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibody in the treatment of metastatic colorectal carcinoma (mCRC). Patients and methods: This observational retrospective study was performed in 160 French centres during a 2-week period in 2011. Its main objective was to evaluate the rate of KRAS testing in patients with mCRC having initiated their first-line therapy. Secondary objectives included time of process, techniques used and reasons for non-prescription. Results: Five hundred and thirty eight mCRC patients (67.1±11.3years, synchronous metastases: 69.9%) were enrolled in the study. KRAS testing was prescribed in 81.1% of patients, in a median of 15days after the diagnosis of metastases, and of 15days prior to the initiation of the first-line metastatic chemotherapy. KRAS status was available for 87% of patients, after 23.6±28.2days, but after the choice of the first-line therapy in 56.6% of patients. Heterogeneity of reception time was noteworthy within regions (8.3±7days to 38.8±101days). KRAS testing was not prescribed mainly due to the planned non-prescription of an anti-EGFR antibody. Conclusion: This study confirmed that KRAS testing is definitely part of the management of most of mCRC patients, despite discrepancies observed in the rate of prescription and the time of results. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Controversy persists concerning screening programs (SPs), related to a potential risk of overdiagnosis or the impact on survival. One of the main questions to be addressed concerns the aggressiveness of the related treatments., Methods: Using the "Cancer Cohort," a national-based cohort (medico-administrative database), all women between the ages of 50 and 74 years and treated in 2014 for incident breast cancer were compared, according to whether their diagnosis was made following a mammogram performed within the framework of the SP (SP group) or outside it (NSP group)., Results: A total of 23 788 women were identified: 13 530 (57%) in the SP group and 10 258 (43%) in the NSP group. The women in the SP group had a higher rate of in situ or localized invasive breast cancer. They had a higher rate of breast-conserving surgery (82% vs 70%), and a lower rate of chemotherapy (34% vs 53%). These findings were observed irrespective of the stage. They had a higher rate of pathways involving breast-conserving surgery followed by radiotherapy. Among women with metastatic cancer, those in the SP group had a lower proportion of liver, lung, brain, and bone metastases, and a higher proportion of lymph node metastases (other than axillary), irrespective of the time to onset of the metastases., Conclusion: The women in whom cancer was diagnosed following a mammogram performed in the context of the SP had less advanced cancer and less aggressive treatments. This observational study helps illustrate the benefit of the SP in France using a different approach., (© 2019 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Lung cancer (LC) screening (LCS) with annual low-dose computed tomography scans has been seen to reduce the specific and overall mortality in selected populations. However, participation is key to successful screening programs. The EDIFICE (etude sur le dépistage des cancers et ses facteurs de compliance [survey on cancer screening and compliance factors]) nationwide observational surveys are used to assess behavior related to cancer screening programs in France., Materials and Methods: Using comprehensive multivariate stepwise logistic regression analyses of data from current and former cigarette smokers, we sought to identify the explanatory factors associated with the intention to participate in an LCS program., Results: Of the 1463 respondents with no personal history of cancer, 263 (36.4%) of the current cigarette smokers and 170 (26.3%) of the former cigarette smokers stated their willingness to participate in an LCS program. The explanatory factors differed between current cigarette smokers (already screened for LC: odds ratio [OR], 2.81; < 30 pack-years: OR, 2.69; intention to quit smoking: OR, 1.96; no social vulnerability: OR, 2.15) and former cigarette smokers (comorbidities: OR, 0.31). The usual eligibility criteria were not significantly explanatory., Conclusion: Our findings highlight the discrepancy that exists between target populations and individuals who actually intend to participate in a screening program for LC, with subsequent potential effects on the participation rates and, thus, on the efficacy of screening., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the context of the national Cancer Plans of France that have changed the healthcare landscape, it has become necessary to better document and assess the related actions, and to promote research and understanding. The national cancer cohort, an exhaustive population-based cohort, was set up on the basis of the National Health Data System (SNDS) by the French National Cancer Institute., Objectives: The aim is to describe the French national cancer cohort., Methods: All people living in France (67 million population) with universal insurance coverage and diagnosed, treated or followed up for a cancer, such as survivors, are included and will be followed up for 25 years. It contains all healthcare consumptions and reimbursements (i.e. hospitalization, outpatient care, medication…) since 2010. Every year, around 650 000 new cases are included., Results: From 2010 to 2015, 6.2 million subjects have been included. Most subjects were entered in 2010, in 2015 it concerned 0.6 million. In 2015, the median age was 65 [54-76]; 51% were women. The primary cancer organ could be attributed with certitude to 87% of the people. The most frequent locations were skin (16%), breast (15%), prostate (12%), colon-rectum (11%) and lung (9%). In 2015, 40% of included subjects underwent surgery for cancer, 16% chemotherapy at hospital and 11% at least one session of radiotherapy., Conclusion: Based on SNDS, the cancer cohort has been designed to study cancer care use in the short-, medium- and long-term, and evaluate healthcare and public health policies., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: The EDIFICE surveys have assessed cancer screening behavior in the French population since 2005., Methods: The 2016 edition was conducted among a representative sample of 1501 individuals (age, 50-75 years). The current analysis focuses on breast, colorectal, prostate, lung, and cervical cancer screening., Results: The rate of women (50 to 74 years) declaring having had at least one breast cancer screening test in their lifetime remained stable and high between 2005 and 2016. Compliance with recommended screening intervals improved between 2005 and 2011 from 75 to 83%, respectively, then decreased significantly to 75% in 2016 (P = 0.02). Uptake of at least one lifetime colorectal cancer screening test procedure declared (individuals aged 50-74 years) increase from 25% in 2005 to 59% in 2011, stabilized at 60% in 2014, then reached 64% in 2016. Opportunistic prostate cancer screening (men aged 50-75 years) rose between 2005 and 2008 from 36 to 49%, plateaued until 2014 then dropped to 42% in 2016. The proportion of women aged 50-65 declaring having undergone one cervical cancer screening test dropped significantly between 2014 and 2016 from 99 to 94% (P < 0.01). Lastly, 11% of our survey population in 2014 and 2016 (55-74 years) declared having already undergone lung cancer screening., Conclusion: Cancer screening behavior fluctuates in France, regardless of the context, i.e., organized programs or opportunistic screening. This observation highlights the need for constant analysis of population attitudes to optimize public awareness campaigns.

The EDIFICE programme began in 2005 and set out to provide a clearer insight over time into the participation of the French population in cancer screening. EDIFICE 3 was conducted in 2011 by phone interviews among a representative sample of 1603 individuals aged between 40 and 75 years using the quota method. The analysis focused on the target populations (50-74 years) of the national screening programmes for breast and colorectal cancer. The same populations were also assessed with respect to prostate cancer screening. In 2005, 93% of the sample population had undergone at least one mammogram in their lifetime; this figure reached 94% in 2008 and 95% in 2011. Compliance with recommended intervals improved between 2005 and 2011, and significantly so for women aged 65-74 years. In 2005, 25% of respondents reported having undergone at least one colorectal cancer screening test; this figure reached 38% in 2008 and 59% in 2011. Recommended intervals were respected by 30 and 51% in 2008 and 2011, respectively. In 2005, 2008 and 2011, a total of 36, 49 and 50% of men reported having undergone at least one prostate cancer screening test. This rate decreased significantly in men aged 50-59 years between 2008 and 2011 (44 vs. 37%, P≤0.05). Attendance rates in national screening programmes are high and stable for breast cancer, and although currently improving for colorectal cancer, the European guideline target has not yet been reached. Despite the absence of recommendations for prostate cancer screening, participation remains constant.

The Cochrane analysis exploring the risk/benefit ratio of breast cancer screening resulted in a controversy worldwide spread by the mass media. Our survey sought to assess the impact of this controversy in terms of breast cancer screening awareness and attendance. A nationwide observational study, recorded in the EDIFICE iterative surveys, with a representative sample of 451 women aged 40-75 years, living in France, was carried out in the 3 months after the start of the controversy in January 2013. Of the 405 women with no personal history of cancer, 69 (17%) declared having heard of the controversy (aware group). Women remembering the controversy were more likely to belong to higher socioprofessional categories and to have a higher level of education. The most frequently remembered issues were overdiagnosis (38%), unreliability (16%) and radiation risk (9%). Compared with women who were unaware of the controversy, the aware group knew more about the limits of breast cancer screening (undiagnosed cancers, 20 vs. 7%, P<0.05 and risk of false positives, 20 vs. 2%, P<0.05) and were more likely to change their opinion for the worse over the mass media debate (8.7 vs. 1.2%, P<0.05). Nevertheless, only 1% of the aware-group declared their intention to subsequently undergo screening less frequently. The low impact of the controversy on the behaviour of women with respect to screening suggests that it should not be seen as a threat to screening attendance rates, but more as an opportunity to improve awareness.

This analysis aimed to assess the extent to which exposure to cancer risk factors and attendance of screening programmes are influenced by social characteristics. The validated Evaluation of deprivation and health inequalities in public health centres (EPICES) index was used to measure social deprivation. A sample of the general population (N=1603) was assessed to search for potential correlations between screening attendance, risk factors and any components of the EPICES score. In 2011, 33% of the population studied was classified as 'vulnerable'. Sex had no significant impact on this rating (32% men, 35% women), whereas occupational status did. Vulnerable individuals were more likely already to have cancer (10 vs. 7%; nonsignificant difference; odds ratio 1.43 [0.98-2.10]). The mean BMI was 26.0 kg/m (SD 4.9) for the vulnerable population versus 24.8 kg/m (SD 3.9) in the nonvulnerable population (P<0.01). The prevalence of current smoking was higher in the vulnerable group (38 vs. 23%, odds ratio 2.03 [1.61-2.56]). In contrast, no statistically significant difference was observed between attendance rates for nationwide organized cancer screening programmes (breast and colorectal; target age group 50-74 years) by the vulnerable and nonvulnerable groups. Social indicators of vulnerable populations are associated with increased rates of risk factors for cancer, but not with screening attendance. Our data support the previously reported marked impact of organized programmes that reduce or even remove inequalities in access to cancer screening. However, although the organized programmes have indeed enabled population-wide, nonselective access to screening, primary prevention as it stands today remains inadequate in the underserved population and further improvements are warranted.

Introduction: French national cancer plans were rolled out oncogeriatric coordination units in France in particular to enable all elderly people with cancer in each region to benefit from a specific care management., Methods: The national hospital discharge database was analyzed in order to analyze hospitalizations related to cancer care in ≥75 years patients for year 2012., Results: A total of 358,721 patients with 1,492,935 hospitalizations were recorded, respectively with chemotherapy (32.4%), radiotherapy (23.0%), surgery (10.6%), palliative care (3.9%), or other care (30.9%). Hospital activity was distributed in hospitals (36.3%), clinics (23.4%), academic hospitals (20.9%), cancer centers (11.8%). Their respective share varied according to care. Total activity volume and number of health care facilities involved were highly variable in the different regions., Conclusion: These data would permit development of a national oncogeriatric policy through the action of regional oncogeriatric coordination units. These units should prioritize training actions and good practice guidelines dissemination in health care institutions with a high activity volume in this domain., (Copyright © 2014 Société Française du Cancer. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: Breast cancer is a major public health challenge. Organized mammography screening (OS) is considered one way to reduce breast cancer mortality. EU recommendations prone mass deployment of OS, and back in 2004, France introduced a national OS programme for women aged 50-74 years. However, in 2012, participation rate was still just 52.7%, well short of the targeted 70% objective. In an effort to re-address the (in) efficiency of the programme, the French National Cancer Institute has drafted an expert-group review of the ethical issues surrounding breast cancer mammography screening., Discussion: Prompted by emerging debate over the efficiency of the screening scheme and its allied public information provision, we keynote the experts' report based on analysis of epidemiological data and participation rate from the public health authorities. The low coverage of the OS scheme may be partly explained by the fact that a significant number of women undergo mammography outside OS and thus outside OS criteria. These findings call for further thinking on (i) the ethical principles of beneficence and non-malfeasance underpinning this public health initiative, (ii) the reasons behind women's and professionals' behavior, and (iii) the need to analyze how information provision to women and the doctor-patient relationship need to evolve in response to scientific controversy over the risks and benefits of conducting mammographic screening., Summary: This work calls for a reappraisal of the provision of screening programme information. We advocate a move to integrate the points sparking debate over the efficiency of the screening scheme to guarantee full transparency. The perspective is to strengthen the respect for autonomy allowing women to make an informed choice in their decision on whether or not to participate.

Background: Available data in the field of oncology in France are scattered due to the large number of available indicators and their sources. In order to facilitate identification and analysis of these indicators, the French National Cancer Institute (INCa) has mapped the main indicators available in oncology., Methods: Mapping was based on the needs of various categories of potential users. Standardized interviews were conducted face-to-face or by email among representatives to determine their needs and expectations. The underlying data sources were also identified: databases, national surveys, websites. A first selection of indicators was proposed in the report entitled "La situation du cancer en France en 2009" ("The state of cancer in France in 2009") and was expanded. Data collection concerning indicators was performed among INCa correspondents for each theme., Results: Several themes were defined: epidemiology, prevention and risk factors, screening, medical demography, health care offer, living conditions, costs and expenses, research. Data were classified according to: geographical coverage, age, gender, type of cancer, occupational categories. This information was collected for each indicator selected and was made available via the cancer data website (http://lesdonnees.e-cancer.fr)., Conclusions: The available oncology indicators are numerous and scattered. Mapping can be a useful tool to facilitate access to these indicators. It should be regularly updated to reflect the most recent data.

Background: Based on international and national recommendations, organized breast cancer screening in France raises questions of medical ethics built around the key concepts of individual autonomy and public health policy. Because of the evolving knowledge, professionals and institutions involved in the program must review the ethical values associated with this medical practice., Methods: The ethical aspects of organized breast cancer screening were studied. In response to newly acquired knowledge highlighted by a review of texts governing this practice in France, proposals for changes resulting from reflections of a working group coordinated by the National Cancer Institute are presented., Results: Ethical issues raised by screening must find expression in the general principles of the program's organization: acceptability of screening, efficiency, adverse effects, equity of access, free care…, but also at different stages of the procedure: information delivery, first and second invitations, refusal of further diagnostic investigation…, Conclusion: A better match between breast cancer screening and recently developed knowledge requires optimal information delivery to women targeted by the program as well as a stronger role for the referring healthcare professional., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Unlabelled: Measuring waiting times is a good indicator of quality of cancer care and could reveal inequalities in cancer care access., Aims: To determine the most representative waiting times in breast, lung, colon and prostate cancer care in several regions of France. To analyze the influence of individual, medical or health care system factors on those waiting times., Methods: This study was piloted by the French Cancer Institute in partnership with the National Federation of the Regional Health Observatories and was driven by the Regional Oncology Networks and the Regional Health Observatories. In 2011, 2,530 women with breast cancer and 1,945 patient with lung cancer were included in eight regions, and in 2012, 3,248 patients with colon cancer and 4,207 men with prostate cancer were included in 13 regions, two of which were overseas departments. Data were analyzed from multidisciplinary discussion reports and from medical records., Results: The mean time intervals (± standard deviation) for the various components of access to care were as follows in breast cancer: mammography to pathologist diagnosis, 17,7 days (±15,9); diagnosis (or treatment proposal) to surgery, 22,9 days (±13,9). In lung cancer: first suspect medical image to pathologist diagnosis, 21,5 days (±17,6); diagnosis to treatment proposal, 13,5 days (±10,7). In colon cancer: coloscopy to pathologist diagnosis, 4,5 days (±4,1); diagnosis to surgery, 18,9 days (±14,9). In prostate cancer: pathologist diagnosis to treatment proposal, 36,5 days (±26,5); treatment proposal to surgery, 45,2 days (±30,1). Data collection was particularly difficult because of very heterogeneous way in medical records filling by care centers, so the data collection method used in the study could not be used in routine procedures. Waiting times measured in the four cancers had an important variability. In fact, age, circumstance of diagnosis, tumor stage and category of care center had an influence. After considering those different factors, differences between regions remained from range 2 to 4. Those regional differences could be explained by organizational factors but were not explored in our study. In the same way, data on individual factors (social vulnerability, category of employment) were not available to measure their effects on this study. Besides, our results were comparable to those in international publications or national recommendations in other countries., Conclusion: These results suggest that waiting times could be good indicators and could reveal inequalities in cancer care access. Measuring them would lead to characterize those inequalities and to propose actions to improve access to cancer care whose impact could be measured.

Background: The French national screening programme for colorectal cancer (CRC) was rolled out nationwide from 2008. It targets men and women aged 50-74 who are invited every 2 years to perform a guaiac faecal occult blood test, followed, if positive, by a colonoscopy. This paper presents the evaluation of the programme for the 46 French districts that conducted a comprehensive screening campaign during 2008-2009, targeting 9.7 million people., Methods: National database gathering information on people who were screened was used to estimate indicators reflecting the programme performance., Results: Participation was 34.3%, with nearly three million people being tested. The percentage of positive tests was 2.8%. Completion of colonoscopies following a positive test was 88%. For men, 36.8% of the results of colonic explorations were normal, 40.1% were adenomas, and 9.0% were CRC, based on the most pejorative lesion. For women, corresponding figures were 55.9%, 25.7% and 5.8%. A CRC was detected for 7.5% of people who had a colonic exploration. The advanced adenoma detection rate among those screened was 4.9‰ and the CRC detection rate was 1.9‰. The description of CRC could only be made for 21 districts, for which 1441 invasive colonic adenocarcinomas were diagnosed; of these, 43% were stage I, 23% stage II, 25% stage III and 9% stage IV., Conclusion: This first evaluation since the programme was rolled out provides an inventory of CRC screening in France and points out some improvements expected, especially in terms of participation which is below the European recommendations. Future evaluations will analyse trends in these indicators., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the performance of the guaiac-based faecal occult blood test (G-FOBT), with that of three immunochemical faecal occult blood tests (I-FOBT) which allow automatic interpretation., Patients and Methods: Under the French organised screening programme, 85,149 average-risk individuals aged 50-74 participating in the third screening round, performed both the G-FOBT (Hemoccult-II test) and one of the I-FOBTs: FOB-Gold, Magstream and OC-Sensor., Results: Given the chosen threshold, the positivity ratio between the different I-FOBTs and the G-FOBT was 2.4 for FOB-Gold, 2.0 for Magstream and 2.2 for OC-Sensor (P=0.17). The three I-FOBTs were superior to the G-FOBT for colorectal cancer (CRC) detection. The ratios for detection rates were 1.6 (FOB-Gold), 1.7 (Magstream) and 2.1 (OC-Sensor) (P=0.74). For non-invasive CRC they were, respectively, 2.5, 3.0 and 4.0 (P=0.83) and for advanced adenomas 3.6, 3.1 and 4.0 (P=0.39)., Conclusions: This study provides further evidence that I-FOBT is superior to G-FOBT. None of the three I-FOBTs studied appeared to be significantly better than the others., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Immunochemical faecal occult blood tests have greater sensitivity for colorectal cancer screening than guaiac-based tests; however the number of positive tests required is still under discussion., Methods: A direct comparison of Hemoccult II with two immunochemical quantitative tests (OC-Sensor and FOB-Gold) using a 2-sample strategy was performed in over 30,000 patients undergoing colorectal cancer screening in France., Results: Positivity ratio between immunochemical tests and Hemoccult II varied between 2.2 (OC-Sensor) and 2.4 (FOB-Gold) for the lowest cut-off value and 1.5-1.4 for the highest cut-off value. The positive predictive value for colorectal cancer was similar for immunochemical tests and Hemoccult II, and significantly higher for immunochemical tests for advanced adenomas. The detection rate of both colorectal cancer and advanced adenomas was higher with immunochemical tests than with Hemoccult II. With the 2-sample strategy and the lowest cut-off value the detection rate of colorectal cancer almost doubled and for advanced adenomas quadrupled., Conclusion: For colorectal cancer screening with immunochemical faecal occult blood tests, an acceptable strategy would be 2-day sampling with at least one positive test at a cut-off between 150 and 200 ng/mL (OC-Sensor) and 176 and 234 ng/mL (FOB-Gold). Data on the ease of test interpretation and cost-effectiveness now necessary to make definitive choices., (Copyright © 2012 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In France, mammography screening is offered to women aged between 50 and 74 years. EDIFICE, the iterative nationwide survey, collected data on a national level about consumers utilization of available cancer screening procedures. This analysis compared data from a subset of 241 women aged between 40 and 50 years with that of 488 women aged between 50 and 74 years. Multivariate analysis showed the following significant factors to be linked with screening attendance for women younger than 50 years: age, with a threshold value at 44 years; awareness of the recommended screening period (2 years); consultation within the last 12 months with a general practitioner or a gynaecologist; and long standing local programme for colon cancer screening. Notwithstanding the debate on risk/benefit of breast cancer screening for women in their 40s, we observed more differences with regard to attendance between women aged 40-45 years versus that of 46-74 years than between women aged 40-49 years versus that of 50-74 years. The issue that is unanswered as yet is, do women make a kind of heuristic for starting breast cancer screening, leading them to a threshold choice of 45 years or alternatively to a collective answer of standard age minus 5 years!

The main lessons from the EDIFICE surveys can be summed up in five points. (i) Evidence talks but very quietly: cancer-screening practices in the French general population do not match scientific evidence; (ii) Give time to time: the rate of appropriation of screening behaviour is slow; (iii) Where there is a will there is a way: the organization of screening decreases inequalities for cancer screening; (iv) Do not aim only at the target: although monitoring of adhesion and compliance for the targeted population is mandatory, monitoring the utilization of screening resources, particularly in countries such as France that have no financial constraints (screening outside the official range is still almost fully reimbursed) is also useful; and (v) Trees do not reach the sky: we have observed a ceiling effect for breast cancer with 90-95% of women who have had a mammogram in their lifetime and 80-85% of women from the targeted population who had a mammogram within the previous 2 years. For colorectal cancer, even with the longstanding programme, the ceiling level observed in France is close to 60%.

In France, free faecal occult blood testing is offered to individuals aged between 50 and 74 years every 2 years as a method of screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). To assess how a proposed organized programme of CRC screening would be perceived among a representative sample of individuals living in France, aged between 40 and 75 years, and by a representative sample of general practitioners, two nationwide observational telephone surveys were carried out in 2005 (EDIFICE 1; 1601 individuals) and 2008 (EDIFICE 2; 1801 individuals). In 2008, 38% of individuals aged between 50 and 74 years reported undergoing screening for CRC; this corresponded to a statistically significant 13% increase in CRC screening rate compared with 2005 (P=0.01). When asked whether it was possible to screen for CRC, 94% of individuals who had undergone screening (N=350) responded positively compared with 87% of individuals who had not been screened. The main reason for individuals not to undergo screening was a lack of awareness (35% of men and 37% of women, P=not significant); the second reason was lack of advice and referral from their general practitioner (21% of women versus 15% of men, P=0.03). The French population is aware of the potential benefit of CRC screening; however, many do not undergo regular screening. It is therefore important to identify the hurdles associated with CRC screening.

In France, no official recommendations for or against systematic screening for prostate cancer have been issued yet. Therefore, individuals' choices with regard to screening or non-screening, and general practitioners' (GPs) recommendations for or against systematic screening should reflect personal preferences. Four nationwide observational studies (surveys) were conducted in France, two in 2005 and two in 2008, on a representative sample of participants aged between 40 and 75 years and a representative sample of GPs. In 2005, 36% of the male population interviewed, and aged between 50 and 75 years declared having undergone a screening test, compared with 49% in 2008 [odds ratio (OR)=1.63; 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.25-2.12]. In 2008, the number of men interviewed who reported having undergone screening less than 1 year earlier increased from 51% in 2005 to 74% (OR=2.18; 95% CI=1.40-3.40). The screening rate for young men (45-49 years) was only 7% in 2008 (data not available in 2005). In 2005, 58% of GPs systematically recommended prostate cancer screening for their patients aged 50-74 years, whereas in 2008, the figure was 65% (OR=1.32; 95% CI=1.04-1.66). The sex or age of the GPs had no significant impact on this rate. In France, we have observed a highly significant increase in prostate cancer screening: more men are screened, more often, at a younger age and more frequently using a prostate-specific antigen blood test. In our surveys, the observed threshold age for onset of prostate cancer screening is 50 years, almost the same as that for approved organized breast and colorectal screening programmes.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is an important public health issue in France, justifying a screening policy adapted to individual risk. The general practitioner (GP) is most commonly the initiator of CRC screening. The EDIFICE 2 survey, carried out in 2008 among 600 GPs, showed that 83% of GPs were convinced of the importance of screening, but that only 30% of GPs systematically recommended the procedure. The main underlying reasons were that only 50% of GPs declared themselves sufficiently trained, GPs needed clear guidelines and information supports for patients and a better implication in the programme's overall organization. This important role was confirmed by patients as the second most important reason for not undergoing screening: the absence of recommendation from their treating physician. The optimization of the screening procedure thus requires a stronger implication of GPs, by confirming their pivotal role in CRC screening and by relying on clear reference documentation guaranteeing quality assurance of a national organized screening programme.

Regular mammography screening has been available in France, free of charge, for all women aged 50-74 years since 2005. Two nationwide surveys [EDIFICE 1 (507 women interviewed; age 50-74 years) and EDIFICE 2 (488 women)] recently collected data on individuals' access to cancer screening procedures. Two further surveys interviewed 600 general practitioners (GPs) each to determine their attitudes towards screening in general and screening for breast cancer in particular. The method of quotas ensured the populations surveyed were representative. In 2005, 93%, and in 2008, 94% of women reported having undergone a screening mammography. Anage-related effect was apparent in the 70-74 year subgroup in 2005, whereas in 2008, over 90% of women aged 50-74 years had had a mammography in their lifetime. In 2008, 66% of women had undergone a mammography as a part of an organized screening programme, versus 45% in 2005. In 2005, 15% of women reported having received no recommendation from their GP, whereas this figure fell to 4% in 2008. In both EDIFICE surveys, two thirds of GPs systematically recommended breast cancer screening to female patients aged 50-74 years; however, female GPs were more likely to systematically recommend this screening. In 2008, 77% of the GPs questioned were aware of the recommended frequency for breast cancer screening, compared with 71% in 2005. Results of studies such as EDIFICE may help increase the proportion of women who undergo breast cancer screening. Successful implementation of organized screening relies heavily on treating physicians. The impact of mammography in breast cancer screening may be further improved by systematic organized screening, by encouraging regular examination and by targeting women who give up screening.

In France, the age range for organized screening for breast cancer is 50-74 years. From a layperson's perspective, the public health message focusing on a specific target population may be difficult to understand. The aim of this study is to assess how women aged over 75 years deal with this absence of screening recommendations for their age group. The population-based survey, EDIFICE, was carried out by telephone in 2008. Women were interviewed with regard to their behaviour, and in particular relating to breast cancer screening. For 136 breast cancer-free women, aged 75 and above and who had undergone at least one mammography in their lifetime, the test had been done within the last 2 years for only 62 (51%) of them. In a multiregression analysis, only one item (i.e. already having undergone at least five mammographies) was statistically associated with a higher rate of attendance (odds ratio=3.3, 95% confidence interval=1.03-11.1). According to our data, for women aged 75 and above, an estimated 17,000,000 Euros are spent each year on breast cancer screening in France, the net benefit of which is still unknown.

With almost 37,500 new cases per year and 17,000 deaths, colorectal cancer represents a major public health problem in France. A new stage in the fight against this cancer should be marked in 2009 with the widespread implementation of the colorectal cancer screening programme over the whole of the French territory. This population-based screening programme targets an eligible population of 16 million persons. The evaluation of the first 23 pilot districts allowed a standardization of the main quality and efficacy indicators. The implementation of the colorectal cancer screening programme relies on monitoring centres, usually one per district, set up for the national breast cancer screening programme. The programme refers to quality assurance guidelines and includes explicit policy with specified age categories, method, and interval for screening. A national screening training programme for newly districts joining the programme was implemented. A small number of laboratories have been selected for the programme on quality criteria. The French National Cancer Institute contributes to organization, information, guidelines, and research. The replacement of the guaiac test used in the French programme by an immunochemical test should be effective in the next few years.

A total of 182 pancreatic transplantations were performed between 1976 and 1990. Survival of the grafts was 45% at 5 years. Major causes of graft loss have been rejection and venous thrombosis. Death occurred in 24 patients and was usually related to vascular complications. The techniques of duodenopancreatic transplantation with enteric drainage, bladder drainage and the technique of segmental duct obstructed grafts were compared. A higher rate of surgical complications was observed with enteric drainage, whereas it is unclear from the data whether segmental grafts or duodenopancreatic grafts drained into the bladder lead to different results.