The status of compliance with guidelines of cancer screening in Japan. (13th November 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kono, K; Matsuda, K; Machii, R; Saika, K; Takahashi, H; Nakayama, T
• Is Part Of: European journal of public health. Volume 29(2019)Supplement 4
• Publication Date: 2019-11-13
• Subjects: Epidemiology -- Europe -- Periodicals; Public health -- Europe -- Periodicals; 362.109405
• DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/ckz187.063
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1101-1262

Abstract

Abstract: Background: The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) establishes screening recommendations specifying screening methods, age, and interval for gastric, colon, lung, breast, and cervical cancers. Screening programs are provided via local healthcare departments (LHD), who are responsible for managing programs and reporting the screening status through a survey annually. Methods: We analyzed screening status provided by LHDs in fiscal 2017 in regards to appropriate screening age and interval. Briefly, current recommended screening age by MHLW is followed: colon, lung, breast cancer screening are age 40 years and older, and cervical cancer for aged 20 and older, and gastric cancer for aged 50 and older. Screening intervals are gastric, breast, and cervical cancer screening are two years, and colon and lung cancer screening are one year. Results: The survey was completed by 1736 LHD (response rate: 99.9%). Regarding age-appropriate compliance, in cervical cancer, 96.4% of LHDs reported following recommended target age, while compliance was lower for lung, colon, breast, and gastric cancers at 79.4%, 75.7%, 60.2% and 4.2%, respectively. High compliance with recommendations for screening interval was identified for colon (99.7%) and lung (98.7%) cancers; this was substantially less for breast, cervical, and gastric cancer screening at 39.8%, 34.1%, and 4.6%, respectively. Conclusions: In 2016, MLHW changed the starting screening age for gastric cancer from 40 to 50 years old, likely resulting in the lowest compliance in our analysis. Though it may take time for screening facilities to come into compliance with newer recommendations. Many LHDs provide screening without adhering to recommended starting ages, with a general tendency to provide screening at younger than recommended ages. This is a barrier to maximizing effectiveness and minimize harms of screening and warrants closer monitoring to promote efficiency in cancer screening programs. Key messages: There is relatively low compliance with cancer screening guidelines in Japan. Establishing an environment of appropriate monitoring and support to achieve the goal of cancer screening is warranted.