nach oben

Erschienen in:

Open Access 01.12.2024 | Research

Cancer screening programs in South-east Asia and Western Pacific

verfasst von: Hwee-Lin Wee, Karen Canfell, Han-Mo Chiu, Kui Son Choi, Brian Cox, Nirmala Bhoo-Pathy, Kate T Simms, Chisato Hamashima, Qianyu Shen, Brandon Chua, Niyomsri Siwaporn, Esther Toes-Zoutendijk

Erschienen in: BMC Health Services Research | Ausgabe 1/2024

Abstract

Background

The burden of cancer can be altered by screening. The field of cancer screening is constantly evolving; from the initiation of program for new cancer types as well as exploring innovative screening strategies (e.g. new screening tests). The aim of this study was to perform a landscape analysis of existing cancer screening programs in South-East Asia and the Western Pacific.

Methods

We conducted an overview of cancer screening in the region with the goal of summarizing current designs of cancer screening programs. First, a selective narrative literature review was used as an exploration to identify countries with organized screening programs. Second, representatives of each country with an organized program were approached and asked to provide relevant information on the organizations of their national or regional cancer screening program.

Results

There was wide variation in the screening strategies offered in the considered region with only eight programs identified as having an organized design. The majority of these programs did not meet all the essential criteria for being organized screening. The greatest variation was observed in the starting and stopping ages.

Conclusions

Essential criteria of organized screening are missed. Improving organization is crucial to ensure that the beneficial effects of screening are achieved in the long-term. It is strongly recommended to consider a regional cancer screening network.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary Material 2

Supplementary Material 3

Supplementary Material 4

Supplementary Material 5

Supplementary Material 6

Supplementary Material 7

Supplementary Material 8

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-10327-8.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Introduction

The global burden of cancer is large, with over 19 million cancer diagnoses and almost 10 million cancer deaths in 2020 [1]. Population-level risk of cancer differs due to multiple factors: genetic predisposition, diet, risk behaviour, and exposure to substances, viruses and bacteria [2‐6]. Cancer-related burden can be altered through the availability of preventive measures, such as screening and vaccination [6‐10]. However, not every cancer type is suitable for screening. Screening for a certain cancer type is recommended only if (1) it leads to benefits (e.g. life-years gained, availability of treatment), (2) these benefits outweigh the associated harms of screening (e.g. overdiagnosis, overtreatment), and (3) has a reasonable ratio between benefits and costs (i.e. cost-effective) [11]. Monitoring and evaluation of cancer screening programs should be conducted to ensure that benefits are achieved and harms are limited, and to improve their efficiency and cost-effectiveness, especially when circumstances change [12].

The World Health Organization (WHO) has published cancer screening guidelines or perspectives on cancer screening, containing screening recommendations, and good practice statements [13‐16]. Recommendations have been endorsed for cancer screening in Asia and the Western Pacific, although some are outdated [17‐20]. The outcomes of the key performance indicators of programs in the region that were monitored and evaluated differ and are often hard to compare [21‐26]. This is likely a result of the different screening program designs and organization of the program in each country or region. An overview of the different cancer screening programs in the region is lacking.

The aim of this study was to perform a landscape analysis of existing cancer screening programs in South-East Asia and Western Pacific.

Methods

Regions

Countries belonging to South-East Asia (SEARO) and Western Pacific (WPRO) regions were included in the study, using WHO regional office denominations [27]. All countries and independent regions are listed in Table 1. As a recent review has been published on cancer control in the Pacific Island states, these territories were not part of this study [28].

Table 1

Overview of all cancer screening programs in countries, regions and island states in South-East Asia and Western Pacific.*

Country	Design	Cancer types	References
South-East Asia
Bangladesh	Opportunistic	Cervical, Breast, Oral	[54, 77, 78]
Bhutan	Opportunistic	Cervical	[79, 80]
South Korea	Organized	Breast, Cervical, Colorectal, Gastric, Liver, Lung	[36]
India	Opportunistic	Breast, Cervical, Oral	[81‐83]
Indonesia	Opportunistic	Breast, Cervical, Colorectal	[84‐86]
Maldives	Opportunistic	Cervical	[87]
Myanmar	Opportunistic	Cervical	[55]
Nepal	Opportunistic	Cervical	[88]
Sri Lanka	Opportunistic	Breast, Cervical, Oral	[89, 90]
Thailand	Organized	Cervical, Colorectal Breast	[33, 37]
Timor-Leste	Unknown
Western Pacific
Australia	Organized	Breast, Cervical, Colorectal	[34]
Brunei Darussalam	Organized	Cervical	[91]
Brunei Darussalam	Opportunistic	Breast, Colorectal, Liver, Nasopharyngeal	[91]
Cambodia	Opportunistic	Cervical, Breast	[55, 92]
China	Opportunistic/Organized local initiatives	Breast, Cervical, Colorectal, Gastric, Liver, Lung, Nasopharyngeal, Oesophageal	[23‐25, 93‐97]
Japan	Organized	Breast, Cervical, Colorectal, Gastric, Lung	[17]
Laos	Opportunistic	Cervical	[55]
Malaysia	Opportunistic	Breast, Cervical, Colorectal	[38, 98, 99]
Mongolia	Opportunistic	Cervical	[100]
New Zealand	Organized	Breast, Cervical, Colorectal	[30]
Papua New Guinea	Unknown
Philippines	Opportunistic	Breast, Cervical, Colorectal, Prostate	[101]
Singapore	Organized	Breast, Cervical, Colorectal	[32]
Taiwan	Organized	Breast, Cervical, Colorectal, Oral	[22, 31, 102, 103]
Vietnam	Opportunistic	Breast, Cervical, Colorectal, Oral	[104]

* Information presented in Table 1 is derived from the selective narrative review

Step 1 - literature review

Narrative literature review was used as an exploration to identify countries with organized screening programs. A comprehensive search strategy was carried out by two independent researchers (E.T-Z and B. Chua), and included published literature or national or regional guidelines, all written in English. We searched on PubMed and governmental or cancer society websites. The following search terms were used: “cancer screening Asia”, “cancer screening COUNTRY” or “cancer prevention COUNTRY” or “TYPE of cancer screening COUNTRY”. For each country or region, we searched for information on the design of the program (opportunistic or organized) and the existence of official national or regional cancer screening recommendations or guidelines available in the public domain and/or scientific literature.

If an official screening recommendation was published and available in the public domain, we collected information on the different cancer types and the applied screening strategy (i.e. year of initiation, eligible age, screening modality, and screening interval). Subsequently, we composed a narrative summary of the findings per country or region.

Expert inputs on organization of the cancer screening programs

Representatives were only contacted if the narrative review showed that their country had an organized program in place. Representatives from countries with only opportunistic cancer screening in place were not contacted. The country or regional representatives were asked to provide relevant information on the organizations of their cancer screening program. These representatives were selected based on review of list of authors in published articles related to cancer screening in the target region. The following topics were addressed: types of cancer screening, initiation of the program, screening test modality, age range and screening interval. Each of the representatives was asked to provide information on the organization of their cancer screening programs by completing the 16 criteria proposed by Zhang et al. [29]. A checklist of the 16 criteria for each of the countries is presented in Supplementary 1.

Results

Organization of screening

Most of the countries in South-East Asia and the Western Pacific had a cancer screening program; 15 countries used an opportunistic approach; 8 countries had established an organized program and for 2 countries the program design of cancer screening was unknown or had no cancer screening program. Although most countries had an opportunistic program in place, not all had an official national or regional screening recommendation or guideline in place (Table 1). All countries with an organized program had an existing screening recommendation or guideline on the screening strategy in place. Japan had the longest history of cancer screening programs, starting in 1983 with cervical cancer and gastric cancer screening [17]. Australia, New Zealand and Taiwan have long-standing programs, with breast cancer and cervical cancer screening starting in the late 1980s and early 1990s [21, 22, 30, 31].

For each of the 8 countries that were identified as having an organized approach the level of organization was assessed. Each representative provided information on their screening strategies and completed the checklist of 16 criteria (Table 2 and Supplementary material). All 8 countries had a screening protocol/guideline that describes the target population and screening strategies as well as monitoring and evaluation. All programs also have a policy framework, carry out evaluation of program performance based on indicators, and a system for identifying the target population. Most programs have a system for inviting the eligible target population, with the exception of Malaysia. However, for those that have a system in place, the invitation method varies for each country. For example, Singapore only invites women aged 40 years old for breast cancer screening and not at older ages. Not all countries meet all criteria 8 to 16. Only South Korea, Australia and Taiwan meet all the essential criteria for an organized cancer screening program.

Table 2

Checklist of 16 essential criteria for organized cancer screening programs for countries or regions with (partly) organized programs

Country	South Korea	Thailand	Australia	Japan	New Zealand	Singapore	Taiwan	Malaysia
Representative	Choi	Siwaporn	Canfell, Simms	Hamashima	Cox	Wee	Chiu	Bhoo-Pathy
Essential criteria by Zhang et al. (2022)
1. Cancer screening program has a protocol/guideline describing at least the target population, screening intervals, screening tests, referral pathway, management of positive cases	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
2. There is a system in place for identifying the target population	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
3. There is a system in place for inviting eligible individuals for screening	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No
4. Cancer screening program has a policy framework from the health authorities defining governance structure, financing, goals and objectives of the program	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
5. Performance of screening program should be evaluated with appropriate indicators	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
6. The protocol/guideline should at least describe: monitoring and evaluation	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
7. There is a system in place for notifying the results and informing about follow up	Yes	Yes	Yes	Partially	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
8. There is a system in place for sending recall notice to the non-compliant individuals	Yes	No	Yes	Partially	Yes	Partially	Sometimes	No
9. Auditing of the program	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
10. A specified team/organization is responsible for quality assurance/ improvement	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
11. Performance of cancer screening program is evaluated, published and widely disseminated on a regular basis	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Partially	Yes	Yes
12. All activities along the screening pathway are planned, coordinated and evaluated through a quality improvement framework (quality assurance)	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
13. An evidence-based protocol/guideline developed in consensus with majority of stakeholders	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
14. An information system exists with appropriate linkages (between population databases, screening information, cancer registry, etc.) for screening implementation and evaluation	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No
15. The screening program has a provision of continued training for service providers	Yes	No	Yes	Partially	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
16. Performance of screening program should be evaluated with reference standards for the indicators	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No

Cancers

An overview of the organized programs is presented below, stratified by cancer type (cervical cancer, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, gastric cancer, and cancers in high-risk groups).

Cervical cancer screening

Remarkably, all countries listed in Table 1 had a cervical cancer screening strategy in place, either Papanicolaou test (Pap Smear), Visual Inspection with Acetic Acid (VIA) test or Human Papillomavirus (HPV) testing, except for the two countries (Timor-Leste and Papua New Guinea) for which no data on cancer screening was available in the literature. For the organized cervical cancer screening programs, the screening strategy differed among the countries. Most countries used the Pap smear as the preferred screening modality. Thailand, Australia and Singapore recently switched from Pap Smear to HPV testing [32‐34]. In Thailand HPV screening was introduced in 2020, but has not been fully implemented across the whole country and cytology screening is still the main screening modality in large part of the country (personal communication). New-Zealand switched to HPV testing in September 2023. Japan has evaluated the current cytology testing strategy and plans to implement HPV testing. Implementation is halted by the government and is not officially been recommended as screening modality. When only considering the countries with an organized program, the start and stop age of screening differed among the countries, partly contributable to the chosen screening test (PAP smear versus HPV testing). For the organized programs using Pap Smear, the starting age varied between 20 and 30 years of age (Fig. 1; Table 3). Japan and South Korea had the lowest starting age of 20 years [17, 35]. The stopping age varied between 65 and 69 years of age. For the organized programs using HPV testing, starting age varied between 25 and 30 years and stopping age varied between 60 and 74 years, with Australia having the highest stopping age of 74 years [34]. Both Japan and South Korea had no stopping age in their screening guidelines [17, 36]. The recommended screening interval also differed for the test used within the program. For programs using Pap Smear, triennial interval was used except for Japan and South Korea with a biennial interval (Table 2). For all countries with an organized program using HPV testing, the interval was 5 years.

Table 3

Overview of cancer screening strategies for countries or regions with (partly) organized programs*

Country	Initiation	Cancer types	Test modality	Age range	Interval	Additional information
South Korea	2002	Breast	Mammography	40 and above	2 years
	2002	Cervical	Pap Smear	20 and above	2 years
	2003	Liver	Abdominal Ultrasonography + Serum Alpha-Fetoprotein test	40 and above (high-risk individuals)	6 months	High risk is considered HBsAg positive or anti-HCV positive or liver cirrhosis
	2004	Colorectal	FIT	50 and above	1 year
	2002	Gastric	UGIS/GE	40 and above	2 years
	2019	Lung	Low dose CT scan	54–74 with 30 pack-years	2 years
Thailand#	2005	Cervical	HPV (since 2020)	30–60	5 years	HPV-testing is not fully implemented across the country
Thailand#	2018	Colorectal	FIT (20 µg Hb/g feces)	50–70	2 years
Australia	1991	Breast	Mammography	50–74	2 years
	1991	Cervical	HPV	25–74	5 years
	2006	Colorectal	FIT (20 µg Hb/g feces)	50–74	2 years
Japan$	1987	Breast	Mammography	40 and above	2 years
	1983	Cervical	Pap Smear	20 and above	2 years	HPV-testing is currently debated, but not yet implemented.
	1992	Colorectal	FIT (cut-off not defined)	40 and above	1 year
	1983	Gastric	UGIS/GE	UGIS: 40 and above GE: 50 and above	UGIS 1 year GE 2 year
New Zealand	1989	Breast	Mammography	45–69	2 years
	1991	Cervical	Pap Smear	25–69	3 years	Switching to 5-yearly HPV-testing in 2023
	2017	Colorectal	FIT (40 µg Hb/g feces)	60–74	2 years
Singapore	2002	Breast	Mammography	50–69	2 years
	2004	Cervical	Pap Smear HPV	25-29 30-69	3 years 5 years
	2011	Colorectal	FIT (10 µg Hb/g feces) or colonoscopy	50 and above	1 year 10 years
Taiwan	2004	Breast	Mammography	45–69 (40–44 with family history)	2 years
	1995	Cervical	Pap Smear	30 and above	3 years
	2004	Colorectal	FIT (20 µg Hb/g feces)	50–74	2 years
	2004	Oral	Oral mucosa inspection	30 and above with the habits of smoking and/or betel nut chewing 18 and above for aborigines with the habit of betel nut chewing	2 years
Opportunistic approach with national screening recommendation with work in progress to implement organized cancer screening
Malaysia	2011	Breast	CBE/Mammography	35 and above 50–74	1 year 2 years
	1995	Cervical	Pap Smear	20–65	3 years	HPV-testing was introduced in 2020, but not available yet in the whole country
	2014	Colorectal	FIT	50 and above	1 year

Abbreviations: Pap Smear (Papanicolaou test); HPV (human papillomavirus); FIT (fecal immunochemical testing); CBE (clinical breast examination); UGIS (Upper Gastro-Intestinography series); GE (Gastrointestinal Endoscopy)

* The information in Table 2 has been provided by the representatives of each country. This information may differ from the references listed in Table 1, which may be out of date

# Thailand has no organized breast cancer screening program

$ Japan has no organized lung cancer screening program

Breast cancer screening

Breast cancer screening is not widely adopted in the South-East Asian and Western Pacific region. In all countries with an organized program, mammography was the recommended test modality. There was one exception, Thailand, where clinical breast examination (CBE) was used as the primary screening modality in an opportunistic screening approach, due to limited healthcare capacity and infrastructure [37]. Starting age varied between 40 and 50 years of age (Fig. 1). Stopping age varied between 69 and 74 years of age. Like cervical cancer screening, few countries had no upper age limit. All mammography-based programs used a two-year screening interval.

Colorectal cancer screening

All eight organized programs recommended colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, using FIT as the primary test modality. Singapore offered a choice, with colonoscopy as alternative screening modality [32]. Considering FIT only, Japan had the lowest starting age, recommending screening at 40 years of age [17]. All other countries recommended to start at the age of 50, except for New Zealand that recommends starting at the age of 60 (Fig. 1) [21, 30, 32‐34, 36, 38]. New Zealand and Australia had the highest stopping age, recommending stopping screening at the age of 74. South Korea, Japan and Singapore had no recommended stopping age for CRC screening. All FIT-based programs used different cut-offs for a positive test, ranging from 10 to 40 µg Hb/g feces, with a one- or two-year screening interval. In Japan and South-Korea, FIT cut-off was not defined on a national level, but differ between regional screening organizations or laboratories. The countries that offered colonoscopy as an alternative screening modality used a 10-year screening interval.

Gastric cancer screening

Two countries offered gastric cancer screening to the general population. South Korea and Japan recommend either upper gastro-intestinography series (UGIS) or a gastrointestinal endoscopy (GE) [17, 36]. Both countries offer gastric cancer screening from the age of 50. Both have no stopping age and use a screening interval of two years.

Cancer screening in high-risk groups

Cervical, breast, colorectal, and gastric cancer screening are all offered to the general population. Some countries also offered organized programs for high-risk groups. In Taiwan, oral cancer screening is offered biennially to betel nut chewers of 30 years and above [39]. In South Korea, lung cancer screening is offered to smokers with 30 pack years, offering biennially low-dose CT scan to individuals aged 54 to 74 years [40]. In South Korea, liver cancer screening is offered to high-risk individuals aged 40 years and older using an abdominal ultrasonography plus serum alpha-fetoprotein test. High-risk individuals are defined as hepatitis B (HBsAg positive), hepatitis C (anti-HCV positive) or liver cirrhosis patients [41]. Australia plans to introduce lung cancer screening by 2025. In Taiwan, lung cancer screening is still in the pilot phase and has not yet been rolled out to the entire eligible population. Japan only offers lung and prostate cancer screening in an opportunistic manner.

Discussion

This study presents an overview of cancer screening programs in the South-East Asia and the Western Pacific. Great variations in the offered screening strategies in the region were observed, in which several factors seem to play a part. Most strategies reflect the disease incidence and availability of resources. Many programs lack structured organization, using an opportunistic screening approach. Among the organized screening programs, there is variety in start and stopping age (or even lack of stopping age); which is only partly explained by the choice of screening test.

Using the criteria checklist for organized screening from Zhang et al., we showed that only South Korea, Australia and Taiwan met all the 16 criteria. Still, most of the countries have guidelines, protocol and frameworks in place for a well-organized program. Upfront, although everything appears to be well-regulated in theory, some essential program aspects are missing.

Most cancer types that were screened for, i.e. cervical cancer, breast cancer and colorectal cancer, are like recommended programs in Europe [42]. The most obvious exception was screening for gastric cancer, present in South Korea and Japan. The main reason might be the higher gastric cancer incidence in East-Asia, due to the presence of risk factors [43, 44]. The decision to implement gastric cancer screening is also related to factors other than the incidence: invasiveness of the test, availability of the required endoscopy resources and effectiveness of alternative screening modalities [45]. It has been suggested that testing for the presence of a Helicobacter pylori infection can be used as risk stratification. Combined with endoscopic screening, individuals with high or low risk for gastric cancer can be identified, offering high-risk individuals more intensified screening than low-risk individuals [46].

Screening for oral cancer in Taiwan is another example of a different screening strategy compared to other parts of the world. This example of screening of only high-risk individuals (i.e. having the habit of betel nut chewing or aboriginal people) may serve as an example for future risk-based cancer screening strategies. Currently, most countries offer uniform screening to the target population, but it is expected that it might shift to more personalized screening, focusing on those at highest risk [47‐50]. Learning from this screening program for high-risk individuals may be informative for many other countries.

In most countries, the age range and frequencies for specific cancer screening recommendations are related to the screening test used; for instance, intervals are longer in countries that use primary HPV compared to those that use pap smear [13, 51]. In Japan and South Korea, however, cervical cancer screening is recommended at the age of 20 years without upper age limit. The decision on when to stop screening in elderly is controversial, not least when a program has limited resources, also in countries with high resources. The controversial issue is balancing the benefits against the harms, especially at older ages. The benefits of screening, such as mortality reduction, could be smaller at older age due to shorter life expectancy, whereas harms of screening (i.e. complications, additonal testing and associated costs) might be more impactful. All these factors should be weighed properly, when determining the age to stop screening [52]. To be able to measure the benefits and harms of screening, regular program monitoring and evaluation of the key program outcomes, including cost-effectiveness analysis, is crucial to determine the optimal screening strategy for each individual country.

This study revealed that offering well-organized cancer screening in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) remains a challenge. The challenges of cancer screening in LMICs have been extensively described in the literature [53‐55]. Because of limited health system resources and competing health risks, a trade-off on the types of cancer screening to be offered may be necessary [54]. Thailand, for instance, offers the latest cervical cancer screening test (i.e. HPV testing), but does not offer breast cancer screening (i.e. mammography) due to various reasons. This also reflects the choice for the best screening modality, of which mammography might not be considered as first choice. Recently it has been shown that CBE can be an effective screening tool, however, the target population should be carefully chosen (i.e. women aged > 50 years) [56]. Besides the choice for the cancer type as well as considering alternative screening tests, other preventive measures should be considered in LMIC. For cervical cancer screening specifically, governments should consider the potential of other preventive measures such as HPV vaccination [57].

The narrative review also revealed that standardized evaluation of the program performance is lacking in the region [58‐60]. The assumption that an organized program design could facilitate program evaluation does not hold for all countries. For instance, in Singapore, a well-organized and wealthy country, there is no information system that linkages population databases, screening information, and cancer registry data for screening evaluation. To allow for a program comparison, uniform definition of key performance indicators is essential, as can be learned from the cancer screening report in the European Union [42]. Similar accounts for cost-effectiveness analyses. Although we identified a fair amount of literature on CEA of cancer screening programs during the narrative review, only few CEAs have been used for policy decision making [61‐73]. A good example of evidence on cost-effectiveness of organized cancer screening has been shown by Lew et al. (2019), providing an overview of modelling estimates of their organized breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening program in Australia [74]. Reporting standardized screening outcomes and using CEAs to inform policy makers are important topics for future research. All the above underlines the relevance for collaboration between cancer screening researchers in the region.

This study had some limitations that should be addressed. Firstly, we might have overlooked national or regional cancer screening guidelines because we did not include non-English documentations. Therefore, this narrative review may not be fully comprehensive, especially as no formal systematic review was conducted. Secondly, there might be a delay in the publication of new or recently revised guidelines, implying that recommended screening strategies can be outdated. We addressed both limitations by approaching many representatives of countries with (partly) organized programs requesting or verifying information on their national or regional cancer screening programs. This showed to be relevant, as it turned out that what appeared to be an organized program in publications was only using an opportunistic approach, i.e. Malaysia.

Some countries indicated that they have an organized screening program in their countries, but we have suggested otherwise [75, 76]. Readers or policy makers in those countries may disagree with our assessment. This emphasizes the need for a standardized assessment of the organizational structure of different cancer screening programs, as was done for CanScreen5, which provides a comprehensive overview of cancer screening programs worldwide.

In conclusion, this overview showed that there is large variation in cancer screening strategies in South-East Asia and the Western Pacific, with only a few fully organized cancer screening programs. Most cancer screening programs offered screening for common cancer types (i.e. cervical, breast and colorectal cancer). Screening strategies differed, often related to the choice of screening test, although some countries had more intensive screening strategies than other countries. We stronly recommend the establishment of a regional cancer screening network, in which knowledge and experience can be exchanged.

Acknowledgements

We thank the students of the Cost-effectiveness of cancer screening course at the Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, for their active participation and critical questions on content of the course which lead to the writing of the manuscript.

Declarations

Competing interests

WHL is the supervisor of a PhD candidate who is a staff of BD, a global medical technology company with business interest in extended genotyping for cervical cancer. The PhD student receives a research scholarship from the Economic Development Board (EDB) of Singapore. WHL does not receive any direct funding from BD for her role as a PhD supervisor. KC receives salary support from the National Health and Medical Research Council Australia (APP1194679). KC is co-PI of an investigator-initiated trial of cervical screening, “Compass”, run by the Australian Centre for Prevention of Cervical Cancer (ACPCC), which is a government-funded not-for-profit charity. Compass receives infrastructure support from the Australian government and the ACPCC has received equipment and a funding contribution from Roche Molecular Diagnostics, USA. KC is also co-PI on a major implementation program Elimination of Cervical Cancer in the Western Pacific which has received support from the Minderoo Foundation and the Frazer Family Foundation and equipment donations from Cepheid Inc. H-M C received a speaker honorarium from Boston Scientific corporation, Olympus Medical, Fujifilm Medical System. Research funding for Taiwan Colorectal Cancer Screening Program from Health Promotion Administration of Taiwanese Government. Research grant from Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwanese Government. SN received a research grant on a project related to cardiovascular drugs and support for attending meetings from Pfizer. NBP received educational grants from Novartis, Pfizer, AIA, Zuellig Pharma, and the Pharmaceutical Association of Malaysia; speaker’s fees for lectures from Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Zuellig Pharma; support for attending meetings or travel from Roche and the Pharmaceutical Association of Malaysia; research material support from Roche Diagnostics; and participated in Pfizer Asia Pacific, Malaysia (advisory board, 2017–18), and Together Against Cancer (secretary, 2018, and committee member, 2019). All others declare to have no competing interests.

Not applicable.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary Material 2

Supplementary Material 3

Supplementary Material 4

Supplementary Material 5

Supplementary Material 6

Supplementary Material 7

Supplementary Material 8

Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2021;71(3).

Chen W, Zheng R, Baade PD, Zhang S, Zeng H, Bray F et al. Cancer statistics in China, 2015. Cancer J Clin. 2016;66(2).

Matsuda T, Saika K. Cancer burden in Japan based on the latest cancer statistics: need for evidence-based cancer control programs. Annals of Cancer Epidemiology. 2018;2.

Oh CM, Won YJ, Jung KW, Kong HJ, Cho H, Lee JK et al. Cancer statistics in Korea: incidence, mortality, survival, and prevalence in 2013. Cancer Res Treat. 2016;48(2).

Conforti C, Zalaudek I. Epidemiology and risk factors of Melanoma: a review. Dermatology Practical & Conceptual. 2021;11:e2021161S.CrossRef

Cardoso R, Guo F, Heisser T, Hackl M, Ihle P, De Schutter H, et al. Colorectal cancer incidence, mortality, and stage distribution in European countries in the Colorectal cancer screening era: an international population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(7):1002–1013d.PubMedCrossRef

Nelson HD, Fu R, Cantor A, Pappas M, Daeges M, Humphrey L. Effectiveness of Breast cancer screening: systematic review and meta-analysis to update the 2009 U.S. preventive services task force recommendation. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(4):244–55.PubMedCrossRef

Gini A, Jansen EEL, Zielonke N, Meester RGS, Senore C, Anttila A, et al. Impact of Colorectal cancer screening on cancer-specific mortality in Europe: a systematic review. Eur J Cancer. 2020;127:224–35.PubMedCrossRef

Zielonke N, Gini A, Jansen EEL, Anttila A, Segnan N, Ponti A, et al. Evidence for reducing cancer-specific mortality due to screening for Breast cancer in Europe: a systematic review. Eur J Cancer. 2020;127:191–206.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Jansen EEL, Zielonke N, Gini A, Anttila A, Segnan N, Vokó Z, et al. Effect of organised Cervical cancer screening on Cervical cancer mortality in Europe: a systematic review. Eur J Cancer. 2020;127:207–23.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Armaroli P, Villain P, Suonio E, Almonte M, Anttila A, Atkin WS et al. European Code against Cancer, 4th Edition: Cancer screening. Cancer Epidemiology. 2015;39.

12.

Lynge E, Törnberg S, Von Karsa L, Segnan N, Van Delden JJM. Determinants of successful implementation of population-based cancer screening programmes. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48(5):743–8.PubMedCrossRef

13.

WHO guideline for screening and treatment of cervical pre-cancer lesions for cervical cancer prevention, second edition. Geneva: World Health Organization. ; 2021. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.

14.

Lauby-Secretan B, Vilahur N, Bianchini F, Guha N, Straif K. The IARC Perspective on Colorectal Cancer Screening. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(18):1734–40.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral

15.

Bouvard V, Wentzensen N, MacKie A, Berkhof J, Brotherton J, Giorgi-Rossi P, et al. The IARC Perspective on Cervical Cancer Screening. Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey; 2022.

16.

Lauby-Secretan B, Scoccianti C, Loomis D, Benbrahim-Tallaa L, Bouvard V, Bianchini F, et al. Breast-Cancer screening — viewpoint of the IARC Working Group. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(15):1479.PubMed

17.

Hamashima C. Cancer screening guidelines and policy making: 15 years of experience in cancer screening guideline development in Japan. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2018;48(3).

18.

Garland SM, Cuzick J, Domingo EJ, Goldie SJ, Kim YT, Konno R et al. Recommendations for Cervical Cancer Prevention in Asia Pacific. Vaccine. 2008;26.

19.

Wong MC, Ding H, Wang J, Chan PS, Huang J. Prevalence and risk factors of Colorectal cancer in Asia. Intest Res. 2019;17(3):317–29.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral

20.

Sung JJY, Chiu HM, Lieberman D, et al. Third Asia-Pacific consensus recommendations on Colorectal cancer screening and postpolypectomy surveillance. Gut. 2022;71(11):2152–66.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Chiu HM, Chen SLS, Yen AMF, Chiu SYH, Fann JCY, Lee YC, et al. Effectiveness of fecal immunochemical testing in reducing Colorectal cancer mortality from the one million Taiwanese screening program. Cancer. 2015;121(18):3221–9.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Yen AMF, Tsau HS, Fann JCY, Chen SLS, Chiu SYH, Lee YC, et al. Population-based Breast cancer screening with risk-based and universal mammography screening compared with clinical breast examination: a propensity score analysis of 1 429 890 Taiwanese women. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(7):915–21.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Zhao Y, Bao H, Ma L, Song B, Di J, Wang L, et al. Real-world effectiveness of primary screening with high-risk human papillomavirus testing in the Cervical cancer screening programme in China: a nationwide, population-based study. BMC Med. 2021;19(1):164.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral

24.

Wang Y, Chen H, Li N, Ren J, Zhang K, Dai M, et al. Ultrasound for Breast cancer screening in high-risk women: results from a population-based cancer screening program in China. Front Oncol. 2019;9:286.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral

25.

Chen H, Li N, Ren J, Feng X, Lyu Z, Wei L, et al. Participation and yield of a population-based Colorectal cancer screening programme in China. Gut. 2019;68(8):1450–7.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Chiu HM, Jen GHH, Wang YW, Fann JCY, Hsu CY, Jeng YC, et al. Long-term effectiveness of faecal immunochemical test screening for proximal and distal colorectal cancers. Gut. 2021;70(12):2321–9.PubMedCrossRef

27.

World Health Organization Member States. https://www.who.int/about/who-we-are/regional-offices. Accessed May 13 2022.

28.

Sarfati D, Dyer R, Sam FAL, Barton M, Bray F, Buadromo E, et al. Cancer control in the Pacific: big challenges facing small island states. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(9):e475–92.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral

29.

Zhang L, Carvalho AL, Mosquera I, Wen T, Lucas E, Sauvaget C, et al. An international consensus on the essential and desirable criteria for an ‘organized’ cancer screening programme. BMC Med. 2022;20(1):101.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral

30.

Overview of New. Zealand Cancer Screening Programs. www.timetoscreen.nz. Accessed May 12 2022.

31.

Huang CH, Lo YJ, Kuo KM, Lu IC, Wu H, Hsieh MT, et al. Health literacy and cancer screening behaviors among community-dwelling female adults in Taiwan. Women Health. 2021;61(5):408–19.PubMedCrossRef

32.

STRC Guidelines 2019. https://www.moh.gov.sg/docs/librariesprovider5/licensing-terms-and-conditions/moh-cir-no-08_2019_6mar19_screening.pdf. Accessed May 13 2022.

33.

National Cancer Control Programme. 2018–2022. https://www.nci.go.th/th/New_web/index.html. Accessed May 13 2022.

34.

Overview of Australian Cancer Screening Programs. http://www.cancerscreening.gov.au/. Accessed May 13 2022.

35.

Min KJ, Lee YJ, Suh M, Yoo CW, Lim MC, Choi J, et al. The Korean guideline for Cervical cancer screening. J Gynecol Oncol. 2015;26(3):232–9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral

36.

National Cancer Screening Programs. https://www.ncc.re.kr/main.ncc?uri=english/sub04_ControlPrograms03. Accessed may 13 2022.

37.

Insamran W, Sangrajrang S. National cancer control program of Thailand. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2020;21(3):577–82.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral

38.

Natonal Strategic Plan. - Portal Rasmi Kementerian Kesihatan Malaysia. moh.gov.my. Accessed May 13 2022.

39.

Kao SY en, Lim E. An overview of detection and screening of Oral cancer in Taiwan. Chin J Dent Res. 2015;18(1):7–12.PubMed

40.

Kim Y. Implementation of organized Lung cancer screening program in Korea (Abstract). Ann Oncol. 2019;30.

41.

Kwon JW, Tchoe HJ, Lee J, Suh JK, Lee JH, Shin S. The impact of national surveillance for Liver cancer: results from real-world setting in Korea. Gut Liver. 2020;14(1):108–16.PubMedCrossRef

42.

Basu P, Ponti A, Anttila A, Ronco G, Senore C, Vale DB, et al. Status of implementation and organization of cancer screening in the European Union Member States—Summary results from the second European screening report. Int J Cancer. 2018;142(1):44–56.PubMedCrossRef

43.

Ko KP, Shin A, Cho S, Park SK, Yoo KY. Environmental contributions to gastrointestinal and Liver cancer in the Asia–Pacific region. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;33(1):111–20.PubMedCrossRef

44.

Moss SF. The clinical evidence linking Helicobacter pylori to Gastric Cancer. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;3(2):183–91.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral

45.

Sugano K. Screening of gastric cancer in Asia. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2015;29(6):895–905.PubMedCrossRef

46.

Hamashima C. Forthcoming step in gastric Cancer Prevention: how can Risk Stratification be combined with endoscopic screening for gastric Cancer? Gut Liver. 2022;16(6):811–24.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral

47.

Conran CA, Shi Z, Resurreccion WK, Na R, Helfand BT, Genova E, et al. Assessing the clinical utility of genetic risk scores for targeted cancer screening. J Transl Med. 2021;19(1):41.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral

48.

Naber SK, Kundu S, Kuntz KM, Dotson WD, Williams MS, Zauber AG et al. Cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified Colorectal cancer screening based on polygenic risk: current status and future potential. JNCI Cancer Spectrum. 2020;4(1).

49.

Chen LS, Yen AMF, Chiu SYH, Liao CS, Chen HH. Baseline faecal occult blood concentration as a predictor of incident colorectal neoplasia: longitudinal follow-up of a Taiwanese population-based Colorectal cancer screening cohort. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(6):551–8.PubMedCrossRef

50.

Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Meester R, de Jonge L, Buron A, Haug U, Senore C. Risk-stratified strategies in population screening for Colorectal cancer. Int J Cancer. 2022;150(3):397–405.PubMedCrossRef

51.

Dorji T, Tshomo U, Gyamtsho S, Tamang ST, Wangmo S, Pongpirul K. Gender-neutral HPV elimination, Cervical cancer screening, and treatment: experience from Bhutan. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2021;156(3):425–9.CrossRef

52.

Rich JS, Black WC. When should we stop screening? Eff Clin Pract. 2000;3(2):78–84.PubMed

53.

Sivaram S, Majumdar G, Perin D, Nessa A, Broeders M, Lynge E, et al. Population-based cancer screening programmes in low-income and middle-income countries: regional consultation of the International Cancer Screening Network in India. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(2):e113–22.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral

54.

Mandal R, Basu P. Cancer screening and early diagnosis in low and middle income countries: current situation and future perspectives. Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz. 2018;61(12):1505–12.PubMedCrossRef

55.

Zhao S, Huang L, Basu P, Domingo EJ, Supakarapongkul W, Ling WY, et al. Cervical cancer burden, status of implementation and challenges of Cervical cancer screening in Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries. Cancer Lett. 2022;525:22–32.PubMedCrossRef

56.

Mittra I, Mishra GA, DIkshit RP, Gupta S, Kulkarni VY, Shaikh HKA, et al. Effect of screening by clinical breast examination on Breast cancer incidence and mortality after 20 years: prospective, cluster randomised controlled trial in Mumbai. BMJ. 2021;372:n256.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral

57.

Global strategy to. Accelerate the elimination of Cervical cancer as a public health problem. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.

58.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Analysis of cancer outcomes and screening behaviour for national cancer screening programs in Australia. Cancer series no. 111. Cat. No. CAN 115. Canberra: AIHW; 2018.

59.

Jung M. National Cancer Screening Programs and evidence-based Healthcare Policy in South Korea. Health Policy. 2015;119(1):26–32.PubMedCrossRef

60.

Lee S, Jun JK, Suh M, Park B, Noh DK, Jung KW, et al. Gastric cancer screening uptake trends in Korea: results for the national cancer screening program from 2002 to 2011. Medicine. 2015;94(8):e533.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral

61.

Hur Byul. Cost-effectiveness analysis of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Korean General Population. Korean J Family Med. 2004;25(4).

62.

Ko MJ, Kim J, Kim Y, Lee YJ, Hong SR, Lee JK. Cost-effectiveness analysis of Cervical cancer screening strategies based on the papanicolaou smear test in Korea. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015;16(6):2317–22.PubMedCrossRef

63.

Nguyen CP, Adang EMM. Cost-effectiveness of Breast cancer screening using mammography in Vietnamese women. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(3):e0194996.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral

64.

Tsoi KKF, Ng SSM, Leung MCM. J.y.sung J. cost-effectiveness analysis on screening for colorectal Neoplasm and management of Colorectal cancer in Asia. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2008;28(3).

65.

Cenin DR, St John DJB, Ledger MJN, Slevin T, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I. Optimising the expansion of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program. Med J Aust. 2014;201(8):456–61.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral

66.

Lew J, Bin, Feletto E, Wade S, Caruana M, Kang YJ, Nickson C, et al. Benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness of cancer screening in Australia: an overview of modelling estimates. Public Health Res Pract. 2019;29(2):29121913.PubMedCrossRef

67.

Termrungruanglert W, Khemapech N, Tantitamit T, Sangrajrang S, Havanond P, Laowahutanont P. Cost-effectiveness analysis study of HPV testing as a primary Cervical cancer screening in Thailand. Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2017;22:58–63.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral

68.

Phisalprapa P, Supakankunti S, Chaiyakunapruk N. Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses of Colorectal cancer screenings in a low- and middle-income country: example from Thailand. J Med Econ. 2019;22(12):1351–61.PubMedCrossRef

69.

Ohnuki K, Kuriyama SS, Shoji N, Nishino Y, Tsuji I, Ohuchi N. Cost-effectiveness analysis of screening modalities for Breast cancer in Japan with special reference to women aged 40–49 years. Cancer Sci. 2006;97(11):1242–7.PubMedCrossRef

70.

Wong SS, Leong APK, Leong TY. Cost-effectiveness analysis of Colorectal cancer screening strategies in Singapore: a dynamic decision analytic approach. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2004;107:104–10.PubMed

71.

Dan YY, Chuah BYS, Koh DCS, Yeoh KG. Screening based on risk for Colorectal Cancer is the most cost-effective Approach. Clin Gatroenterol Hepatol. 2012;10(3):266–71.CrossRef

72.

McLeod M, Kvizhinadze G, Boyd M, Barendregt J, Sarfati D, Wilson N, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: how health gains and cost-effectiveness vary by ethnic group, the impact on health inequalities, and the optimal age range to screen. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2017;26(9):1391–400.PubMedCrossRef

73.

Chen Y, Watson TR, Criss SD, Eckel A, Palazzo L, Sheehan DF, et al. A simulation study of the effect of Lung cancer screening in China, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(7):e0220610.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral

74.

Hussain SA, Sullivan R. Cancer control in Bangladesh. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2013;43(12):1159–69.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral

75.

IARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention. Colorectal Cancer Screening. 2019. Volume 17.

76.

Rabeneck L, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I. Assessment of a cancer screening program. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2015;29(6):979–85.PubMedCrossRef

77.

Hussain SA, Sullivan R. Cancer control in Bangladesh. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2013;43(12):1159-69.

78.

Basu P, Nessa A, Majid M, Rahman JN, Ahmed T. Evaluation of the National Cervical Cancer Screening Programme of Bangladesh and the formulation of quality assurance guidelines. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2010;36(3):131–4.PubMedCrossRef

79.

Baussano I, Tshomo U, Clifford GM, Tenet V, Tshokey T, Franceschi S. Cervical cancer screening program in Thimphu, Bhutan: Population coverage and characteristics associated with screening attendance. BMC Womens Health. 2014;14(1):147.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral

80.

Cervical Cancer Screening Manuel. 2014 Bhutan. http://www.moh.gov.bt/wp-content/uploads/ict-files/2014/11/Cervical-Cancer-screening-manual-2014.pdf. Accessed May 13 2022.

81.

Operational Framework Management of Common Cancer. 2016. https://main.mohfw.gov.in/sites/default/files/Operational Framework Management of Common Cancers_1.pdf. Accessed May 13 2022.

82.

Rajaraman P, Anderson BO, Basu P, Belinson JL, D’Cruz A, Dhillon PK, et al. Recommendations for screening and early detection of common cancers in India. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(7):e352–61.PubMedCrossRef

83.

Mishra GA, Dhivar HD, Gupta SD, Kulkarni SV, Shastri SS. A population-based screening program for early detection of common cancers among women in India - Methodology and interim results. Indian J Cancer. 2015;52(1):139–45.PubMedCrossRef

84.

Anwar SL, Tampubolon G, Van Hemelrijck M, Hutajulu SH, Watkins J, Wulaningsih W. Determinants of cancer screening awareness and participation among Indonesian women. BMC Cancer. 2018;18(1):208.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral

85.

Wahidin M. Overview of ten years (2007–2016) cervical and Breast Cancer screening program in Indonesia. J Global Oncol. 2018;4(Supplement 2).

86.

Koo JH, Leong RWL, Ching J, Yeoh KG, Wu DC, Murdani A, et al. Knowledge of, attitudes toward, and barriers to participation of Colorectal cancer screening tests in the Asia-Pacific region: a multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;76(1):126–35.PubMedCrossRef

87.

Basu P, Hassan S, Fileeshia F, Mohamed S, Nahoodha A, Shiuna A, et al. Knowledge, attitude and practices of women in Maldives related to the risk factors, prevention and early detection of Cervical cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15(16):6691–5.PubMedCrossRef

88.

Darj E, Chalise P, Shakya S. Barriers and facilitators to Cervical cancer screening in Nepal: a qualitative study. Sex Reprod Healthc. 2019;20:20–6.PubMedCrossRef

89.

National guideline on cancer early detection and referal pathways printed book. (Sri Lanka). https://nccp.health.gov.lk/en. Accessed May 13 2022.

90.

Jayarajah U, Abeygunasekera AM. Cancer services in Sri Lanka: current status and future directions. J Egypt natl Canc Inst. 2021;33(1):13.PubMedCrossRef

91.

National Health Screening Guideline on Noncommunicable Diseases (NCDs). http://www.moh.gov.bn/SharedDocuments/MOH_NationalHealthScreeningGuidelineonNCDs_23Jul2020.pdf. Accessed May 13 2020.

92.

Vorn R, Ryu E, Srun S, Chang S, Suh I, Kim W. Breast and Cervical cancer screening for risk assessment in Cambodian women. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2020;40(3):395–400.PubMedCrossRef

93.

Shi JF, Cao M, Wang Y, Bai FZ, Lei L, Peng J, et al. Is it possible to halve the incidence of Liver cancer in China by 2050? Int J Cancer. 2021;148(5):1051–65.PubMedCrossRef

94.

Yang H, Li SP, Chen Q, Morgan C. Barriers to Cervical cancer screening among rural women in eastern China: a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2019;9(3):e026413.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral

95.

Pan KF, Zhang L, Gerhard M, Ma JL, Liu WD, Ulm K, et al. A large randomised controlled intervention trial to prevent gastric cancer by eradication of Helicobacter pylori in Linqu County, China: baseline results and factors affecting the eradication. Gut. 2016;65(1):9–18.PubMedCrossRef

96.

Chen R, Liu Y, Song G, Li B, Zhao D, Hua Z, et al. Effectiveness of one-time endoscopic screening programme in prevention of upper gastrointestinal cancer in China: a multicentre population-based cohort study. Gut. 2021;70(2):251–60.PubMed

97.

Cao M, Li H, Sun D, He S, Yu Y, Li J, et al. Cancer screening in China: the current status, challenges, and suggestions. Cancer Lett. 2021;506:120–7.PubMedCrossRef

98.

Lee M, Mariapun S, Rajaram N, Teo SH, Yip CH. Performance of a subsidised mammographic screening programme in Malaysia, a middle-income Asian country. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):127.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral

99.

Hassan MRA, Leong TW, Andu DFO, Hat H, Nik Mustapha NR. Evaluation of a colorectal carcinoma screening program in Kota Setar and Kuala Muda districts, Malaysia. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2016;17(2):569–73.PubMedCrossRef

100.

https://www.borgenmagazine.com/increasing-cervical-cancer-screenings-mongolia/. Accessed May 13 2022.

101.

Cancer Prevention Guidelines. http://www.philcancer.org.php/educational/cancer-prevention. Accessed May 13 2022.

102.

Chiu HM, Su CW, Hsu WF, Jen GHH, Hsu CY, Chen SLS, et al. Mitigating the impact of COVID-19 on Colorectal cancer screening: Organized service screening perspectives from the Asia-Pacific region. Prev Med. 2021;151:106622.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral

103.

Chuang SL, Su WWY, Chen SLS, Yen AMF, Wang CP, Fann JCY, et al. Population-based screening program for reducing Oral cancer mortality in 2,334,299 Taiwanese cigarette smokers and/or betel quid chewers. Cancer. 2017;123(9):1597–609.PubMedCrossRef

104.

Pham T, Bui L, Kim G, Hoang D, Tran T, Hoang M. Cancers in Vietnam—Burden and Control efforts: a narrative scoping review. Cancer Control. 2019;26(1).

Titel: Cancer screening programs in South-east Asia and Western Pacific
verfasst von: Hwee-Lin Wee
Karen Canfell
Han-Mo Chiu
Kui Son Choi
Brian Cox
Nirmala Bhoo-Pathy
Kate T Simms
Chisato Hamashima
Qianyu Shen
Brandon Chua
Niyomsri Siwaporn
Esther Toes-Zoutendijk
Publikationsdatum: 01.12.2024
Verlag: BioMed Central
Erschienen in: BMC Health Services Research / Ausgabe 1/2024
Elektronische ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-10327-8

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Supplementary Information

Publisher’s Note

Introduction

Methods

Regions

Step 1 - literature review

Expert inputs on organization of the cancer screening programs

Results

Organization of screening

Cancers

Cervical cancer screening

Breast cancer screening

Colorectal cancer screening

Gastric cancer screening

Cancer screening in high-risk groups

Discussion

Acknowledgements

Declarations

Competing interests

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Consent for publication

Publisher’s Note

Electronic supplementary material

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2024

Delegating care as a double-edged sword for quality of nursing care: a qualitative study

Co-creation process of an intervention to implement a multiparameter point-of-care testing device in a primary healthcare setting for non-communicable diseases in Peru

Development of regional pharmacy intravenous admixture services data reporting and analysis platform for enhanced quality control ability

Proposed task shifting integrated with telemedicine to address uncorrected refractive error in Kenya: Delphi study

Understanding health system resilience in responding to COVID-19 pandemic: experiences and lessons from an evolving context of federalization in Nepal

Access to child developmental assessment services in culturally and linguistically diverse metropolitan Sydney: a retrospective cohort analysis