1327P - Opinion on cancer screening: Impact on prescription and participation rates

Date 09 October 2016
Event ESMO 2016 Congress
Session Poster display
Topics Aetiology, epidemiology, screening and prevention
Basic Scientific Principles
Presenter Jean-François Morère
Citation Annals of Oncology (2016) 27 (6): 462-468. 10.1093/annonc/mdw385
Authors J. Morère1, J. Viguier2, S. Couraud3, L. Guibaudet4, J. Blay5, A.B. Cortot6, C. Lhomel7, L. Greillier8, X. Pivot9, F. Eisinger10
  • 1Medical Oncology, Hopital Paul Brousse, 94800 - Villejuif/FR
  • 2Medical Oncology, CHRU Bretonneau, 37044 - Tours/FR
  • 3Respiratory Diseases And Thoracic Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, 69495 - Pierre Bénite/FR
  • 4Statistics, KantarHealth, Paris/FR
  • 5Medical Oncology, Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon/FR
  • 6Pneumology And Thoracic Oncology, DRC / CHRU of Lille, Lille/FR
  • 7Oncology/hematology Institutionnal, Roche, Boulogne-Billancourt/FR
  • 8Multidisciplinary Oncology And Therapeutic Innovations, Hopital Nord, Marseille/FR
  • 9Service Oncologie Medicale, CHU Besançon, Hôpital Jean Minjoz, 25030 - Besançon/FR
  • 10Cancer Control, Institute Paoli Calmettes, Marseille/FR

Abstract

Background

The aim of the EDIFICE surveys is to improve insight into screening programs in France. We hypothesized that individual opinions may affect physicians' and laypersons' attitudes toward prescribing or participating in screening, respectively; we assessed physicians' and laypersons' opinions, focusing on colorectal (CRC), breast (BC), cervical (CC), prostate (PC) and lung (LC) cancer screening.

Methods

The 4th nationwide observational survey was conducted by phone interviews using the quota method. A representative sample of 1463 individuals with no history of cancer (age 40-75 y; 726 men [m], 737 women [w]) was interviewed from 12 June-10 July 2014. A mirror survey on a representative sample of 301 physicians (201 general practitioners [GP, 131 m, 70 w] and 100 oncologists [65 m, 35 w]) was conducted from 9 July-8 August. We analyzed replies stating screening to be more reassuring than worrying.

Results

In general, screening was more reassuring than worrying, more so for physicians than for laypersons (CRC 65% vs 51%, CC 74% vs 62%, PC 59% vs 43%, P 

Conclusions

Physicians tend to be more reassured by screening than laypersons, and oncologists more so than GP, with the exception of PC screening. The official guidelines for CRC and BC screening are a good setting for GPs' medical practice. The most widely used screening programs (CRC, BC, PC) enable GP to make objective prescriptions, regardless of individual opinions. In the absence of guidelines (PC), prescription rates are correlated with physicians' confidence in screening. Reassurance in screening has a positive impact on laypersons' participation rates.

Clinical trial identification

Legal entity responsible for the study

EDIFICE surveys are funded by Roche

Funding

EDIFICE surveys are funded by Roche

Disclosure

Jean F. Morère,Sébastien Couraud, Jean-Yves Blay, Alexis B. Cortot, Laurent Greillier, Xavier B. Pivot, François Eisinger: Honorarium fees from Roche. C. Lhomel: Employee of Roche.

All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.