...
首页> 外文期刊>Gut: Journal of the British Society of Gastroenterology >Contrasting US and European approaches to colorectal cancer screening: which is best?
【24h】

Contrasting US and European approaches to colorectal cancer screening: which is best?

机译:对比美国和欧洲的大肠癌筛查方法:哪个最好?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

In the recent 1-2 decades, we have seen a considerable development in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening modalities and programme implementation, but major challenges remain. While CRC is still the second leading cause of cancer death in both the USA and Europe, there are limited data on the efficacy and effectiveness of all screening modalities except for the faecal occult blood test (FOBT). Newer screening tests, such as faecal immunochemical tests, molecular markers and CT colonography are being introduced and variably adopted, though overall rates of screening are suboptimal. Professional societies and governmental bodies have endorsed screening, though recommended approaches are quite variable, which may help to explain the great variation in screening practices. Unfortunately, quality assurance programmes are underutilised. Comparing the USA and Europe there may be more variation in CRC screening recommendation and practice within each continent than between them, but there seems to be a stronger emphasis on programmatic screening in Europe, facilitating quality assurance. The much debated need for randomised trials as new screening modalities emerge could be more easily handled if running screening programmes are regarded as natural platforms for testing out and evaluating presumed improvements in the service--including new emerging screening modalities.
机译:在最近的1-2年中,我们已经看到了大肠癌(CRC)筛查方式和计划实施方面的长足发展,但主要挑战仍然存在。尽管在美国和欧洲,CRC仍是癌症死亡的第二大主要原因,但除粪便潜血测试(FOBT)之外,所有筛查方法的功效和有效性数据有限。尽管总的筛查率不是最理想的,但较新的筛查方法,如粪便免疫化学检测,分子标记和CT结肠造影术,已被引入并有所不同。专业协会和政府机构已经批准了筛查,尽管推荐的方法变化很大,这可能有助于解释筛查实践的巨大差异。不幸的是,质量保证计划没有得到充分利用。比较美国和欧洲,每个大陆的CRC筛查建议和实践可能比它们之间的差异更大,但似乎更强调欧洲的程序筛查,以促进质量保证。如果正在运行的筛查程序被视为测试和评估服务中假定的改进的自然平台,包括新出现的筛查方法,那么随着新筛查方法的出现,人们对随机试验的争议就越来越容易了。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号