European Groundshot-addressing Europe's cancer research challenges: a Lancet Oncology Commission.

Cancer research is a crucial pillar for countries to deliver more affordable, higher quality, and more equitable cancer care. Patients treated in research-active hospitals have better outcomes than patients who are not treated in these settings. However, cancer in Europe is at a crossroads. Cancer was already a leading cause of premature death before the COVID-19 pandemic, and the disastrous effects of the pandemic on early diagnosis and treatment will probably set back cancer outcomes in Europe by almost a decade. Recognising the pivotal importance of research not just to mitigate the pandemic today, but to build better European cancer services and systems for patients tomorrow, the Lancet Oncology European Groundshot Commission on cancer research brings together a wide range of experts, together with detailed new data on cancer research activity across Europe during the past 12 years. We have deployed this knowledge to help inform Europe's Beating Cancer Plan and the EU Cancer Mission, and to set out an evidence-driven, patient-centred cancer research roadmap for Europe. The high-resolution cancer research data we have generated show current activities, captured through different metrics, including by region, disease burden, research domain, and effect on outcomes. We have also included granular data on research collaboration, gender of researchers, and research funding. The inclusion of granular data has facilitated the identification of areas that are perhaps overemphasised in current cancer research in Europe, while also highlighting domains that are underserved. Our detailed data emphasise the need for more information-driven and data-driven cancer research strategies and planning going forward. A particular focus must be on central and eastern Europe, because our findings emphasise the widening gap in cancer research activity, and capacity and outcomes, compared with the rest of Europe. Citizens and patients, no matter where they are, must benefit from advances in cancer research. This Commission also highlights that the narrow focus on discovery science and biopharmaceutical research in Europe needs to be widened to include such areas as prevention and early diagnosis; treatment modalities such as radiotherapy and surgery; and a larger concentration on developing a research and innovation strategy for the 20 million Europeans living beyond a cancer diagnosis. Our data highlight the important role of comprehensive cancer centres in driving the European cancer research agenda. Crucial to a functioning cancer research strategy and its translation into patient benefit is the need for a greater emphasis on health policy and systems research, including implementation science, so that the innovative technological outputs from cancer research have a clear pathway to delivery. This European cancer research Commission has identified 12 key recommendations within a call to action to reimagine cancer research and its implementation in Europe. We hope this call to action will help to achieve our ambitious 70:35 target: 70% average survival for all European cancer patients by 2035.

Are patients with cancer at higher risk of COVID-19-related death? A systematic review and critical appraisal of the early evidence.

BACKGROUND: Early reports suggested that COVID-19 patients with cancer were at higher risk of COVID-19-related death. We conducted a systematic review with risk of bias assessment and synthesis of the early evidence on the risk of COVID-19-related death for COVID-19 patients with and without cancer. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched Medline/Embase/BioRxiv/MedRxiv/SSRN databases to 1 July 2020. We included cohort or case-control studies published in English that reported on the risk of dying after developing COVID-19 for people with a pre-existing diagnosis of any cancer, lung cancer, or haematological cancers. We assessed risk of bias using tools adapted from the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We used the generic inverse-variance random-effects method for meta-analysis. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated separately. Of 96 included studies, 54 had sufficient non-overlapping data to be included in meta-analyses (>500,000 people with COVID-19, >8000 with cancer; 52 studies of any cancer, three of lung and six of haematological cancers). All studies had high risk of bias. Accounting for at least age consistently led to lower estimated ORs and HRs for COVID-19-related death in cancer patients (e.g. any cancer versus no cancer; six studies, unadjusted OR=3.30,95%CI:2.59-4.20, adjusted OR=1.37,95%CI:1.16-1.61). Adjusted effect estimates were not reported for people with lung or haematological cancers. Of 18 studies that adjusted for at least age, 17 reported positive associations between pre-existing cancer diagnosis and COVID-19-related death (e.g. any cancer versus no cancer; nine studies, adjusted OR=1.66,95%CI:1.33-2.08; five studies, adjusted HR=1.19,95%CI:1.02-1.38). CONCLUSIONS: The initial evidence (published to 1 July 2020) on COVID-19-related death in people with cancer is characterised by multiple sources of bias and substantial overlap between data included in different studies. Pooled analyses of non-overlapping early data with adjustment for at least age indicated a significantly increased risk of COVID-19-related death for those with a pre-existing cancer diagnosis.

The risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 or developing COVID-19 for people with cancer: A systematic review of the early evidence.

BACKGROUND: The early COVID-19 literature suggested that people with cancer may be more likely to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 or develop COVID-19 than people without cancer, due to increased health services contact and/or immunocompromise. While some studies were criticised due to small patient numbers and methodological limitations, they created or reinforced concerns of clinicians and people with cancer. These risks are also important in COVID-19 vaccine prioritisation decisions. We performed a systematic review to critically assess and summarise the early literature. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a systematic search of Medline/Embase/BioRxiv/MedRxiv/SSRN databases including peer-reviewed journal articles, letters/commentaries, and non-peer-reviewed pre-print articles for 1 January-1 July 2020. The primary endpoints were diagnosis of COVID-19 and positive SARS-CoV-2 test. We assessed risk of bias using a tool adapted from the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Twelve studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. All four studies of COVID-19 incidence (including 24,181,727 individuals, 125,649 with pre-existing cancer) reported that people with cancer had higher COVID-19 incidence rates. Eight studies reported SARS-CoV-2 test positivity for > 472,000 individuals, 48,370 with pre-existing cancer. Seven of these studies comparing people with any and without cancer, were pooled using random effects [pooled odds ratio 0.91, 95 %CI: 0.57-1.47; unadjusted for age, sex, or comorbidities]. Two studies suggested people with active or haematological cancer had lower risk of a positive test. All 12 studies had high risk of bias; none included universal or random COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 testing. CONCLUSIONS: The early literature on susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 for people with cancer is characterised by pervasive biases and limited data. To provide high-quality evidence to inform decision-making, studies of risk of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 for people with cancer should control for other potential modifiers of infection risk, including age, sex, comorbidities, exposure to the virus, protective measures taken, and vaccination, in addition to stratifying analyses by cancer type, stage at diagnosis, and treatment received.

Primary care and cancer: an analysis of the impact and inequalities of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient pathways.

OBJECTIVES: We explore the routes to cancer diagnosis to further undertanding of the inequality in the reduction in detection of new cancers since the start of the pandemic. We use different data sets to assess stages in the cancer pathway: primary care data for primary care consultations, routine and urgent referrals and published analysis of cancer registry data for appointments and first treatments. SETTING: Primary and cancer care. PARTICIPANTS: In this study we combine multiple data sets to perform a population-based cohort study on different areas of the cancer pathway. For primary care analysis, we use a random sample of 5 00 000 patients from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Postreferral we perform a secondary data analysis on the Cancer Wait Times data and the National Cancer Registry Analysis Service COVID-19 data equity pack. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary care: consultation, urgent cancer referral and routine referral rates, then appointments following an urgent cancer referral, and first treatments for new cancer, for all and by quintile of patient's local area index of multiple deprivation. RESULTS: Primary care contacts and urgent cancer referrals in England fell by 11.6% (95% CI 11.4% to 11.7%) and 20.2% (95% CI 18.1% to 22.3%) respectively between the start of the first non-pharmaceutical intervention in March 2020 and the end of January 2021, while routine referrals had not recovered to prepandemic levels. Reductions in first treatments for newly diagnosed cancers are down 16.3% (95% CI 15.9% to 16.6%). The reduction in the number of 2-week wait referrals and first treatments for all cancer has been largest for those living in poorer areas, despite having a smaller reduction in primary care contact. CONCLUSIONS: Our results further evidence the strain on primary care and the presence of the inverse care law, and the dire need to address the inequalities so sharply brought into focus by the pandemic. We need to address the disconnect between the importance we place on the role of primary care and the resources we devote to it.

Prioritising locations for radiotherapy equipment in Brazil: a cross-sectional, population-based study and development of a LINAC shortage index.

BACKGROUND: Similarly to several other upper-middle-income countries, there is a major shortfall in radiotherapy services for the treatment of cancer in Brazil. In this study, we developed the linear accelerator (LINAC) shortage index to assess the LINAC shortage and support the prioritisation of new LINAC distribution in Brazil. METHODS: This cross-sectional, population-based study used data from the National Cancer Institute 2020 Cancer estimates, the Ministry of Health 2019 radiotherapy census, the Minister of Health radiotherapy expansion programme progress reports, and the Fundação Oncocentro de São Paulo public database of the Cancer Hospital Registry of the State of São Paulo to calculate the LINAC shortage index. Data collected were number of new cancer cases in Brazil, number of LINACs per region and state, number of cancer cases treated with radiotherapy, patient state of residence, and radiotherapy treatment centre and location. National, regional, and state-level data were collected for analysis. LINAC numbers, cancer incidence, geographical distribution, and radiotherapy needs were estimated. A LINAC shortage index was calculated as a relative measure of LINAC demand compared with supply based on number of new cancer cases, number of patients requiring radiotherapy, and the number of LINCAS in the region or state. We then built a prioritisation framework using the LINAC shortage index, cancer incidence, and geographical factors. Finally, using patient-level public cancer registry data from the Fundação Oncocentro de São Paulo and Google maps, we estimated the geospatial distance travelled by patients with cancer from their state of residence to radiotherapy treatment in São Paulo from 2005-14. Non-parametric statistics were used for analysis. FINDINGS: Data were collected between Feb 2 and Dec 31, 2021. In 2020, there were 625 370 new cancer cases in Brazil and 252 LINAC machines. The number of LINACs was inadequate in all Brazilian regions, with a national LINAC shortage index of 221 (ie, 121% less than the required radiotherapy capacity). The LINAC shortage index was higher in the midwest (326), north (313), and northeast (237) regions, than the southeast (210) and south (192) regions. Four states (Tocantins, Acre, Amapá, and Roraima) in the north region were ranked first on the prioritisation rank due to no availability of LINACs. There was an association between LINAC shortage index and the number of patients who travelled to receive radiotherapy (p<0·0001). Patients living in the midwest (793 km), north (2835 km), and northeast (2415 km) regions travelled significantly longer average distances to receive radiotherapy treatment in São Paulo than patients living in the southeast or south regions (p=0·032). The reduced number of LINACs in these regions was associated with longer distance travelled (p=0·032). INTERPRETATION: There is substantial discordance between distribution of cancer cases and LINAC availability in Brazil. We developed a tool using the LINACs shortage index to help prioritise the development of radiotherapy infrastructure across Brazil; this approach might also be useful in other health systems. FUNDING: None.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the diagnosis and treatment of men with prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on diagnostic and treatment activity in 2020 across hospital providers of prostate cancer (PCa) care in the English National Health Service. METHODS: Diagnostic and treatment activity between 23 March (start of first national lockdown in England) and 31 December 2020 was compared with the same calendar period in 2019. Patients newly diagnosed with PCa were identified from national rapid cancer registration data linked to other electronic healthcare datasets. RESULTS: There was a 30.8% reduction (22 419 vs 32 409) in the number of men with newly diagnosed PCa in 2020 after the start of the first lockdown, compared with the corresponding period in 2019. Men diagnosed in 2020 were typically at a more advanced stage (Stage IV: 21.2% vs 17.4%) and slightly older (57.9% vs 55.9% ≥ 70 years; P < 0.001). Prostate biopsies in 2020 were more often performed using transperineal (TP) routes (64.0% vs 38.2%). The number of radical prostatectomies in 2020 was reduced by 26.9% (3896 vs 5331) and the number treated by external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) by 14.1% (9719 vs 11 309). Other changes included an increased use of EBRT with hypofractionation and reduced use of docetaxel chemotherapy in men with hormone-sensitive metastatic PCa (413 vs 1519) with related increase in the use of enzalutamide. CONCLUSION: We found substantial deficits in the number of diagnostic and treatment procedures for men with newly diagnosed PCa after the start of the first lockdown in 2020. The number of men diagnosed with PCa decreased by about one-third and those diagnosed had more advanced disease. Treatment patterns shifted towards those that limit the risk of COVID-19 exposure including increased use of TP biopsy, hypofractionated radiation, and enzalutamide. Urgent concerted action is required to address the COVID-19-related deficits in PCa services to mitigate their impact on long-term outcomes.

Association between COVID-19 burden and delays to diagnosis and treatment of cancer patients in England.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has been highly disruptive for cancer care. Here, we examined the effect COVID-19 had on performance of the 62-day Cancer Waiting Time (CWT) target set by the National Health Service (NHS) in England. METHODS: Data were retrospectively obtained on COVID-19 hospitalisations and CWT for NHS hospitals in England (n = 121). We produced a 'COVID-19 burden' to describe the proportion of each provider's beds occupied with COVID-19 patients. COVID-19 burden was examined against CWT performance for 1st April - 30th May 2020 (Wave 1), and 1st October - 30th November 2020 (Wave 2). Two-tailed Spearman correlations were used to identify relationships between COVID-19 burden and CWT performance amongst different referral (i.e., 2-week-wait (2 W W) and internal specialist) and tumour types. Significantly correlated variables were further examined using linear regression models. RESULTS: COVID-19 burden was negatively associated with the percentage of 2 W W pathway referrals that met the CWT target in Wave 1 (r= -0.30, p = 0.001) and Wave 2 (r= -0.21, p = 0.02). These associations were supported by the results from our linear regression models (B for wave 1: -0.71; 95 %CI: -1.03 to -0.40; B for wave 2: -0.38; 95 %CI: -0.68 to -0.07). No associations were found between COVID-19 burden and internal specialist referrals or tumour type. CONCLUSION: Increased COVID-19 burden was associated with lower compliance with CWT targets amongst urgent referrals from primary care in England. This will likely be an ongoing issue due to the backlog of patients awaiting investigations and treatment. POLICY SUMMARY: As the number of cancer referrals improve, we highlight the need for changes to primary and secondary care to manage the backlog within cancer diagnostic services to alleviate the impact of COVID-19.

Surgical Treatment and Outcomes of Colorectal Cancer Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A National Population-based Study in England.

To compare the management and outcomes of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients during the first 2 months of the COVID-19 pandemic with the preceding 6 months. BACKGROUND: The pandemic has affected the diagnosis and treatment of CRC patients worldwide. Little is known about the safety of major resection and whether creating "cold" sites (COVID-free hospitals) is effective. METHODS: A national study in England used administrative hospital data for 14,930 CRC patients undergoing surgery between October 1, 2019, and May 31, 2020. Mortality of CRC resection was compared before and after March 23, 2020 ("lockdown" start). RESULTS: The number of elective CRC procedures dropped sharply during the pandemic (from average 386 to 214 per week), whereas emergency procedures were hardly affected (from 88 to 84 per week). There was little change in characteristics of surgical patients during the pandemic. Laparoscopic surgery decreased from 62.5% to 35.9% for elective and from 17.7% to 9.7% for emergency resections. Surgical mortality increased slightly (from 0.9% to 1.2%, P = 0.06) after elective and markedly (from 5.6% to 8.9%, P = 0.003) after emergency resections. The observed increase in mortality during the first phase of the pandemic was similar in "cold" and "hot" sites (P > 0.5 elective and emergency procedures). CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic resulted in a 50% reduction in elective CRC procedures during the initial surge and a substantial increase in mortality after emergency resection. There was no evidence that surgery in COVID-free "cold" sites led to better outcomes in the first 2 months.

Economic impact of avoidable cancer deaths caused by diagnostic delay during the COVID-19 pandemic: A national population-based modelling study in England, UK.

INTRODUCTION: Delays in cancer diagnosis arose from the commencement of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) introduced in the UK in March 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Our earlier work predicted this will lead to approximately 3620 avoidable deaths for four major tumour types (breast, bowel, lung, and oesophageal cancer) in the next 5 years. Here, using national population-based modelling, we estimate the health and economic losses resulting from these avoidable cancer deaths. We also compare these with the impact of an equivalent number of COVID-19 deaths to understand the welfare consequences of the different health conditions. METHODS: We estimate health losses using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and lost economic productivity using the human capital (HC) approach. The analysis uses linked English National Health Service (NHS) cancer registration and hospital administrative datasets for patients aged 15-84 years, diagnosed with breast, colorectal, and oesophageal cancer between 1st Jan to 31st Dec 2010, with follow-up data until 31st Dec 2014, and diagnosed with lung cancer between 1st Jan to 31st Dec 31 2012, with follow-up data until 31st Dec 2015. Productivity losses are based on the estimation of excess additional deaths due to cancer at 1, 3 and 5 years for the four cancer types, which were derived from a previous analysis using this dataset. A total of 500 random samples drawn from the total number of COVID-19 deaths reported by the Office for National Statistics, stratified by gender, were used to estimate productivity losses for an equivalent number of deaths (n = 3620) due to SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: We collected data for 32,583 patients with breast cancer, 24,975 with colorectal cancer, 6744 with oesophageal cancer, and 29,305 with lung cancer. We estimate that across the four site-specific cancers combined in England alone, additional excess cancer deaths would amount to a loss of 32,700 QALYs (95% CI 31,300-34,100) and productivity losses of £103.8million GBP (73.2-132.2) in the next five years. For breast cancer, we estimate a loss of 4100 QALYS (3900-4400) and productivity losses of £23.2 m (18.2-28.6); for colorectal cancer, 15,000 QALYS (14,100-16,000) lost and productivity losses of £35.7 m (22.4-48.7); for lung cancer 10,900 QALYS (9,900-11,700) lost and productivity losses of £38.3 m (14.0-59.9) for lung cancer; and for oesophageal cancer, 2700 QALYS (2300-3,100) lost and productivity losses of £6.6 m (-6 to -17.6). In comparison, the equivalent number of COVID-19 deaths caused approximately 21,450 QALYs lost, as well as productivity losses amounting to £76.4 m (73.5-79.2). CONCLUSION: Premature cancer deaths resulting from diagnostic delays during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK will result in significant economic losses. On a per-capita basis, this impact is, in fact, greater than that of deaths directly attributable to COVID-19. These results emphasise the importance of robust evaluation of the trade-offs of the wider health, welfare and economic effects of NPI to support both resource allocation and the prioritisation of time-critical health services directly impacted in a pandemic, such as cancer care.

Modelling palliative and end-of-life resource requirements during COVID-19: implications for quality care.

OBJECTIVES: The WHO estimates that the COVID-19 pandemic has led to more than 1.3 million deaths (1 377 395) globally (as of November 2020). This surge in death necessitates identification of resource needs and relies on modelling resource and understanding anticipated surges in demand. Our aim was to develop a generic computer model that could estimate resources required for end-of-life (EoL) care delivery during the pandemic. SETTING: A discrete event simulation model was developed and used to estimate resourcing needs for a geographical area in the South West of England. While our analysis focused on the UK setting, the model is flexible to changes in demand and setting. PARTICIPANTS: We used the model to estimate resourcing needs for a population of around 1 million people. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The model predicts the per-day 'staff' and 'stuff' resourcing required to meet a given level of incoming EoL care activity. RESULTS: A mean of 11.97 hours of additional community nurse time, up to 33 hours of care assistant time and up to 30 hours additional care from care assistant night sits will be required per day as a result of out of hospital COVID-19 deaths based on the model prediction. Specialist palliative care demand is predicted to increase up to 19 hours per day. An additional 286 anticipatory medicine bundles per month will be necessary to alleviate physical symptoms at the EoL care for patients with COVID-19: an average additional 10.21 bundles of anticipatory medication per day. An average additional 9.35 syringe pumps could be needed to be in use per day. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis for a large region in the South West of England shows the significant additional physical and human resource required to relieve suffering at the EoL as part of a pandemic response.

The impact of national non-pharmaceutical interventions ('lockdowns') on the presentation of cancer patients.

One of the most ignored aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic has been the impact of public health measures by governments on wider health and welfare. From March 2020, hospitals in the UK saw a dramatic reduction in patients with cancer presenting due to multifactorial reasons. The impact of the pandemic on patients with cancer in the South East London Cancer Alliance was studied. The specific aims were (1) to examine the reduction in cancer diagnoses during the first wave of the pandemic and (2) to examine the stage of diagnosis of patients with cancer presenting during the pandemic compared with that of patients presenting before the pandemic. There was an 18.2% reduction in new cancer diagnoses (an estimate of 987 cancers), when compared with 2019. This fall in cancer diagnoses was most marked in patients with prostate (51.4%), gynaecological (29.7%), breast (29.5%) and lung (23.4%) cancers. There was an overall 3.9% increase in advanced stage presentation (Stages 3 and 4), with an overall 6.8% increase in Stage 4 cancers during this period. The greatest shifts were seen in lung (increase of 6.3%, with an 11.2% increase in Stage 4 cancer alone) and colorectal (5.4%) cancers. For prostate cancer, there was an increase in 3.8% in those presenting with Stage 4 disease. For breast cancer, there was an 8% reduction in patients diagnosed with Stage 1 cancer with commensurate increases in the proportion of those with Stage 2 disease. The experiences in cancer are a salient warning that pandemic control measures and policy need to balance all health and welfare. Alternative strategies need to be adopted during further waves of the current and any future pandemic to ensure that patients with cancer are prioritised for diagnosis and treatment to prevent late-stage presentation and an increase in avoidable deaths.

Early cancer diagnosis: reaching targets across whole populations amidst setbacks.

Early diagnosis of cancer, followed by timely and appropriate therapy, are the cornerstones of the secondary prevention of cancer, thus the NHS has set a 2028 target to achieve 75% early stage (TNM I/II) at cancer diagnosis. In this context, Barclay et al. evaluated overall, sex, age and deprivation-group-specific progress towards this target based on 202,000 cancer patients diagnosis in 2015. Herein, we discuss their findings which form a valuable pre-COVID-19 pandemic status. We discuss the impact of the pandemic and the efforts being made in innovative early detection and diagnosis research.

Mortality due to cancer treatment delay: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the association of cancer treatment delay and mortality for each four week increase in delay to inform cancer treatment pathways. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Published studies in Medline from 1 January 2000 to 10 April 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Curative, neoadjuvant, and adjuvant indications for surgery, systemic treatment, or radiotherapy for cancers of the bladder, breast, colon, rectum, lung, cervix, and head and neck were included. The main outcome measure was the hazard ratio for overall survival for each four week delay for each indication. Delay was measured from diagnosis to first treatment, or from the completion of one treatment to the start of the next. The primary analysis only included high validity studies controlling for major prognostic factors. Hazard ratios were assumed to be log linear in relation to overall survival and were converted to an effect for each four week delay. Pooled effects were estimated using DerSimonian and Laird random effect models. RESULTS: The review included 34 studies for 17 indications (n=1 272 681 patients). No high validity data were found for five of the radiotherapy indications or for cervical cancer surgery. The association between delay and increased mortality was significant (P<0.05) for 13 of 17 indications. Surgery findings were consistent, with a mortality risk for each four week delay of 1.06-1.08 (eg, colectomy 1.06, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.12; breast surgery 1.08, 1.03 to 1.13). Estimates for systemic treatment varied (hazard ratio range 1.01-1.28). Radiotherapy estimates were for radical radiotherapy for head and neck cancer (hazard ratio 1.09, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.14), adjuvant radiotherapy after breast conserving surgery (0.98, 0.88 to 1.09), and cervix cancer adjuvant radiotherapy (1.23, 1.00 to 1.50). A sensitivity analysis of studies that had been excluded because of lack of information on comorbidities or functional status did not change the findings. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer treatment delay is a problem in health systems worldwide. The impact of delay on mortality can now be quantified for prioritisation and modelling. Even a four week delay of cancer treatment is associated with increased mortality across surgical, systemic treatment, and radiotherapy indications for seven cancers. Policies focused on minimising system level delays to cancer treatment initiation could improve population level survival outcomes.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer deaths due to delays in diagnosis in England, UK: a national, population-based, modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Since a national lockdown was introduced across the UK in March, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer screening has been suspended, routine diagnostic work deferred, and only urgent symptomatic cases prioritised for diagnostic intervention. In this study, we estimated the impact of delays in diagnosis on cancer survival outcomes in four major tumour types. METHODS: In this national population-based modelling study, we used linked English National Health Service (NHS) cancer registration and hospital administrative datasets for patients aged 15-84 years, diagnosed with breast, colorectal, and oesophageal cancer between Jan 1, 2010, and Dec 31, 2010, with follow-up data until Dec 31, 2014, and diagnosed with lung cancer between Jan 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2012, with follow-up data until Dec 31, 2015. We use a routes-to-diagnosis framework to estimate the impact of diagnostic delays over a 12-month period from the commencement of physical distancing measures, on March 16, 2020, up to 1, 3, and 5 years after diagnosis. To model the subsequent impact of diagnostic delays on survival, we reallocated patients who were on screening and routine referral pathways to urgent and emergency pathways that are associated with more advanced stage of disease at diagnosis. We considered three reallocation scenarios representing the best to worst case scenarios and reflect actual changes in the diagnostic pathway being seen in the NHS, as of March 16, 2020, and estimated the impact on net survival at 1, 3, and 5 years after diagnosis to calculate the additional deaths that can be attributed to cancer, and the total years of life lost (YLLs) compared with pre-pandemic data. FINDINGS: We collected data for 32 583 patients with breast cancer, 24 975 with colorectal cancer, 6744 with oesophageal cancer, and 29 305 with lung cancer. Across the three different scenarios, compared with pre-pandemic figures, we estimate a 7·9-9·6% increase in the number of deaths due to breast cancer up to year 5 after diagnosis, corresponding to between 281 (95% CI 266-295) and 344 (329-358) additional deaths. For colorectal cancer, we estimate 1445 (1392-1591) to 1563 (1534-1592) additional deaths, a 15·3-16·6% increase; for lung cancer, 1235 (1220-1254) to 1372 (1343-1401) additional deaths, a 4·8-5·3% increase; and for oesophageal cancer, 330 (324-335) to 342 (336-348) additional deaths, 5·8-6·0% increase up to 5 years after diagnosis. For these four tumour types, these data correspond with 3291-3621 additional deaths across the scenarios within 5 years. The total additional YLLs across these cancers is estimated to be 59 204-63 229 years. INTERPRETATION: Substantial increases in the number of avoidable cancer deaths in England are to be expected as a result of diagnostic delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. Urgent policy interventions are necessary, particularly the need to manage the backlog within routine diagnostic services to mitigate the expected impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with cancer. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation Economic and Social Research Council.