A model-based analysis of the health impacts of COVID-19 disruptions to primary cervical screening by time since last screen for current and future disruptions.

We evaluated how temporary disruptions to primary cervical cancer (CC) screening services may differentially impact women due to heterogeneity in their screening history and test modality. We used three CC models to project the short- and long-term health impacts assuming an underlying primary screening frequency (i.e., 1, 3, 5, or 10 yearly) under three alternative COVID-19-related screening disruption scenarios (i.e., 1-, 2-, or 5-year delay) versus no delay in the context of both cytology-based and human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening. Models projected a relative increase in symptomatically detected cancer cases during a 1-year delay period that was 38% higher (Policy1-Cervix), 80% higher (Harvard), and 170% higher (MISCAN-Cervix) for underscreened women whose last cytology screen was 5 years prior to the disruption period compared with guidelines-compliant women (i.e., last screen 3 years prior to disruption). Over a woman's lifetime, temporary COVID-19-related delays had less impact on lifetime risk of developing CC than screening frequency and test modality; however, CC risks increased disproportionately the longer time had elapsed since a woman's last screen at the time of the disruption. Excess risks for a given delay period were generally lower for HPV-based screeners than for cytology-based screeners. Our independent models predicted that the main drivers of CC risk were screening frequency and screening modality, and the overall impact of disruptions from the pandemic on CC outcomes may be small. However, screening disruptions disproportionately affect underscreened women, underpinning the importance of reaching such women as a critical area of focus, regardless of temporary disruptions.

Modeling Strategies to Optimize Cancer Screening in USPSTF Guideline-Noncompliant Women.

Importance: In 2018, only half of US women obtained all evidence-based cancer screenings. This proportion may have declined during the COVID-19 pandemic because of social distancing, high-risk factors, and fear. Objective: To evaluate optimal screening strategies in women who obtain some, but not all, US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)-recommended cancer screenings. Design, Setting, and Participants: This modeling study was conducted from January 31, 2017, to July 20, 2020, and used 4 validated mathematical models from the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network using data from 20 million simulated women born in 1965 in the US. Interventions: Forty-five screening strategies were modeled that combined breast, cervical, colorectal, and/or lung cancer (LC) screenings; restricted to 1, 2, 3 or 4 screenings per year; or all eligible screenings once every 5 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: Modeled life-years gained from restricted cancer screenings as a fraction of those attainable from full compliance with USPSTF recommendations (maximum benefits). Results were stratified by LC screening eligibility (LC-eligible/ineligible). We repeated the analysis with 2018 adherence rates, evaluating the increase in adherence required for restricted screenings to have the same population benefit as USPSTF recommendations. Results: This modeling study of 20 million simulated US women found that it was possible to reduce screening intensity to 1 carefully chosen test per year in women who were ineligible for LC screening and 2 tests per year in eligible women while maintaining 94% or more of the maximum benefits. Highly ranked strategies screened for various cancers, but less often than recommended by the USPSTF. For example, among LC-ineligible women who obtained just 1 screening per year, the optimal strategy frequently delayed breast and cervical cancer screenings by 1 year and skipped 3 mammograms entirely. Among LC-eligible women, LC screening was essential; strategies omitting it provided 25% or less of the maximum benefits. The top-ranked strategy restricted to 2 screenings per year was annual LC screening and alternating fecal immunochemical test with mammography (skipping mammograms when due for cervical cancer screening, 97% of maximum benefits). If adherence in a population of LC-eligible women obtaining 2 screenings per year were to increase by 1% to 2% (depending on the screening test), this model suggests that it would achieve the same benefit as USPSTF recommendations at 2018 adherence rates. Conclusions and Relevance: This modeling study of 45 cancer screening strategies suggests that women who are noncompliant with cancer screening guidelines may be able to reduce USPSTF-recommended screening intensity with minimal reduction in overall benefits.

Impact of disruptions and recovery for established cervical screening programs across a range of high-income country program designs, using COVID-19 as an example: A modelled analysis.

COVID-19 has disrupted cervical screening in several countries, due to a range of policy-, health-service and participant-related factors. Using three well-established models of cervical cancer natural history adapted to simulate screening across four countries, we compared the impact of a range of standardised screening disruption scenarios in four countries that vary in their cervical cancer prevention programs. All scenarios assumed a 6- or 12-month disruption followed by a rapid catch-up of missed screens. Cervical screening disruptions could increase cervical cancer cases by up to 5-6%. In all settings, more than 60% of the excess cancer burden due to disruptions are likely to have occurred in women aged less than 50 years in 2020, including settings where women in their 30s have previously been offered HPV vaccination. Approximately 15-30% of cancers predicted to result from disruptions could be prevented by maintaining colposcopy and precancer treatment services during any disruption period. Disruptions to primary screening had greater adverse effects in situations where women due to attend for screening in 2020 had cytology (vs. HPV) as their previous primary test. Rapid catch-up would dramatically increase demand for HPV tests in 2021, which it may not be feasible to meet because of competing demands on the testing machines and reagents due to COVID tests. These findings can inform future prioritisation strategies for catch-up that balance potential constraints on resourcing with clinical need.

Cervical screening during the COVID-19 pandemic: optimising recovery strategies.

Disruptions to cancer screening services have been experienced in most settings as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ideally, programmes would resolve backlogs by temporarily expanding capacity; however, in practice, this is often not possible. We aim to inform the deliberations of decision makers in high-income settings regarding their cervical cancer screening policy response. We caution against performance measures that rely solely on restoring testing volumes to pre-pandemic levels because they will be less effective at mitigating excess cancer diagnoses than will targeted measures. These measures might exacerbate pre-existing inequalities in accessing cervical screening by disregarding the risk profile of the individuals attending. Modelling of cervical screening outcomes before and during the pandemic supports risk-based strategies as the most effective way for screening services to recover. The degree to which screening is organised will determine the feasibility of deploying some risk-based strategies, but implementation of age-based risk stratification should be universally feasible.

Effects of cancer screening restart strategies after COVID-19 disruption.

BACKGROUND: Many breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening programmes were disrupted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to estimate the effects of five restart strategies after the disruption on required screening capacity and cancer burden. METHODS: Microsimulation models simulated five restart strategies for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening. The models estimated required screening capacity, cancer incidence, and cancer-specific mortality after a disruption of 6 months. The restart strategies varied in whether screens were caught up or not and, if so, immediately or delayed, and whether the upper age limit was increased. RESULTS: The disruption in screening programmes without catch-up of missed screens led to an increase of 2.0, 0.3, and 2.5 cancer deaths per 100 000 individuals in 10 years in breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, respectively. Immediately catching-up missed screens minimised the impact of the disruption but required a surge in screening capacity. Delaying screening, but still offering all screening rounds gave the best balance between required capacity, incidence, and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies with the smallest loss in health effects were also the most burdensome for the screening organisations. Which strategy is preferred depends on the organisation and available capacity in a country.