Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 11 de 11
Filter
2.
Eur J Cancer ; 161: 38-43, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1719652

ABSTRACT

Many countries had to suspend their colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programme as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. This eventually may lead to postponed diagnoses of premalignant lesions and CRC, resulting in increased incidence or more advanced CRCs rates. This study aimed to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on incidence and stage distribution of CRCs in the Netherlands, by monitoring CRC diagnoses and stage distribution in the months before, during and after the first COVID-19 wave. Data on incidence and stage distribution of CRCs of individuals aged 55-75 years in 25 hospitals in the Netherlands were extracted from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. The observed incidence after the suspension (March 2020-December 2020) was compared to the expected incidence in the same period. In the period April to June 2020, we observed the largest decrease in the total incidence of CRC. We found that 48% of the decrease was due to stage I, 23% due to stage II, 23% due to stage III and 5% due to stage IV. After gradually resuming screening mid May 2020, we observed an increase in CRC diagnoses from July 2020 onwards. As of October 2020, the observed number of diagnoses was higher than the expected number. As the decrease was mainly limited to stage I CRCs, it seems that the temporary suspension of the CRC screening programme due to the COVID-19 pandemic will have a minimal long-term impact on stage distribution and CRC mortality.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Aged , Female , Humans , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasm Staging , Netherlands , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
3.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-313527

ABSTRACT

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs worldwide have been disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to estimate the impact of hypothetical disruptions to organized CRC screening programs on short- and long-term CRC incidence and mortality in three countries using microsimulation modelling.Methods: Using CRC microsimulation models for Australia (Policy1-Bowel), Canada (OncoSim) and the Netherlands (ASCCA and MISCAN-Colon) participating in the COVID-19 and Cancer Global Modelling Consortium (CCGMC), we simulated a range of scenarios to assess the potential impact of disruptions to screening on CRC incidence and mortality. Modelled scenarios varied by disruption duration (3-, 6- and 12-months), post-disruption participation decreases, and catch-up screening strategy.Findings: Without catch-up screening, CRC deaths could increase by 0·2-0·5%, 0·4-1·0%, and 0·8-2·0% over 2020-2050 among individuals aged 50 years and older in the three modelled countries after 3-, 6-, and 12- month disruptions, respectively, compared to undisrupted screening. A 6-month disruption would result in an estimated 1,964, 1,319, and 676-856 additional CRC deaths in Australia, Canada and the Netherlands, respectively, compared to undisrupted screening. Providing catch-up screening could minimize the impact of the disruption, while a post-disruption decrease in participation could increase CRC deaths by 1·8-3·7% compared to undisrupted screening.Interpretation: Although the relative impact of the modelled CRC screening disruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic is modest, there is a clear impact on absolute CRC deaths over the period 2020-2050. It is crucial that, if disrupted, screening programs ensure participation rates return to previously observed rates and provide catch-up screening wherever possible, as the impact of any disruption could be considerably larger otherwise.Funding Statement: The secretariat for the COVID-19 and Cancer Global Modelling Consortium (CCGMC) working group 2 is funded through Cancer Council New South Wales.Declaration of Interests: KC: Dr. Canfell reports and is co-principal investigator of an unrelated investigator-initiated trial of cervical screening in Australia (Compass;ACTRN12613001207707 and NCT02328872), which is conducted and funded by the VCS Foundation (VCS), a government-funded health promotion charity. The VCS Foundation received equipment and a funding contribution from Roche Molecular Systems USA. However, neither KC nor her institution on her behalf (Cancer Council NSW) receives direct funding from industry for this trial or any other project. All other authors declare no conflict of interest.

4.
J Med Screen ; : 9691413211056777, 2021 Dec 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1556973

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) has been disrupted in many countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. Performing catch-up of missed screens while maintaining regular screening services requires additional colonoscopy capacity that may not be available. This study aimed to compare strategies that clear the screening backlog using limited colonoscopy resources. METHODS: A range of strategies were simulated using four country-specific CRC natural-history models: Adenoma and Serrated pathway to Colorectal CAncer (ASCCA) and MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis for CRC (MISCAN-Colon) (both in the Netherlands), Policy1-Bowel (Australia) and OncoSim (Canada). Strategies assumed a 3-month screening disruption with varying recovery period lengths (6, 12, and 24 months) and varying FIT thresholds for diagnostic colonoscopy. Increasing the FIT threshold reduces the number of referrals to diagnostic colonoscopy. Outcomes for each strategy were colonoscopy demand and excess CRC-related deaths due to the disruption. RESULTS: Performing catch-up using the regular FIT threshold in 6, 12 and 24 months could prevent most excess CRC-related deaths, but required 50%, 25% and 12.5% additional colonoscopy demand, respectively. Without exceeding usual colonoscopy demand, up to 60% of excess CRC-related deaths can be prevented by increasing the FIT threshold for 12 or 24 months. Large increases in FIT threshold could lead to additional deaths rather than preventing them. CONCLUSIONS: Clearing the screening backlog in 24 months could avert most excess CRC-related deaths due to a 3-month disruption but would require a small increase in colonoscopy demand. Increasing the FIT threshold slightly over 24 months could ease the pressure on colonoscopy resources.

5.
Prev Med ; 151: 106643, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1294331

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected many healthcare services worldwide. Like many other nations, the Netherlands experienced large numbers of individuals affected by COVID-19 in 2020, leading to increased demands on hospitals and intensive care units. The Dutch Ministry of Health decided to suspend the Dutch biennial fecal immunochemical test (FIT) based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program from March 16, 2020. FIT invitations were resumed on June 3. In this study, we describe the short-term effects of this suspension on a myriad of relevant screening outcomes. As a result of the suspension, a quarter of the individuals due for screening between March and November 2020 had not received their invitation for FIT screening by November 30, 2020. Furthermore, 57.8% of those who received a consecutive FIT between the restart and November 30, 2020, received it outside the upper limit of the standard screening interval (26 months). Median time between positive FIT and colonoscopy did not change as a result of the pandemic. Participation rates of FIT screening and follow-up colonoscopy in the months just before and during the suspension were significantly lower than expected, but returned to normal levels after the suspension. Based on the anticipated 2020 cohort size, we estimate that the number of individuals with advanced neoplasia currently detected up until November 2020 was 31.2% lower compared to what would have been expected without a pandemic. Future studies should monitor the impact on long-term screening outcomes as a result of the pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Colorectal Neoplasms , Colonoscopy , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Colorectal Neoplasms/epidemiology , Early Detection of Cancer , Humans , Mass Screening , Netherlands/epidemiology , Occult Blood , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
6.
JAMA Oncol ; 7(6): 885-894, 2021 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1274648

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Early Detection of Cancer , Models, Theoretical , Breast Neoplasms/diagnosis , Breast Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Breast Neoplasms/epidemiology , Breast Neoplasms/virology , COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Colorectal Neoplasms/epidemiology , Colorectal Neoplasms/virology , Female , Guidelines as Topic , Humans , Lung Neoplasms/diagnosis , Lung Neoplasms/epidemiology , Lung Neoplasms/virology , Mammography , Patient Compliance , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/diagnosis , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/epidemiology , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/virology
8.
JAMA Oncol ; 7(6): 885-894, 2021 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1206734

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Early Detection of Cancer , Models, Theoretical , Breast Neoplasms/diagnosis , Breast Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Breast Neoplasms/epidemiology , Breast Neoplasms/virology , COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Colorectal Neoplasms/epidemiology , Colorectal Neoplasms/virology , Female , Guidelines as Topic , Humans , Lung Neoplasms/diagnosis , Lung Neoplasms/epidemiology , Lung Neoplasms/virology , Mammography , Patient Compliance , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/diagnosis , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/epidemiology , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/virology
9.
Br J Cancer ; 124(9): 1516-1523, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1135654

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Early Detection of Cancer , Pandemics , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/diagnosis , Adult , Aged , Breast Neoplasms/complications , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/virology , Colorectal Neoplasms/complications , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/complications
10.
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol ; 6(4): 304-314, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1062700

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer screening programmes worldwide have been disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to estimate the impact of hypothetical disruptions to organised faecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening programmes on short-term and long-term colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in three countries using microsimulation modelling. METHODS: In this modelling study, we used four country-specific colorectal cancer microsimulation models-Policy1-Bowel (Australia), OncoSim (Canada), and ASCCA and MISCAN-Colon (the Netherlands)-to estimate the potential impact of COVID-19-related disruptions to screening on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands annually for the period 2020-24 and cumulatively for the period 2020-50. Modelled scenarios varied by duration of disruption (3, 6, and 12 months), decreases in screening participation after the period of disruption (0%, 25%, or 50% reduction), and catch-up screening strategies (within 6 months after the disruption period or all screening delayed by 6 months). FINDINGS: Without catch-up screening, our analysis predicted that colorectal cancer deaths among individuals aged 50 years and older, a 3-month disruption would result in 414-902 additional new colorectal cancer diagnoses (relative increase 0·1-0·2%) and 324-440 additional deaths (relative increase 0·2-0·3%) in the Netherlands, 1672 additional diagnoses (relative increase 0·3%) and 979 additional deaths (relative increase 0·5%) in Australia, and 1671 additional diagnoses (relative increase 0·2%) and 799 additional deaths (relative increase 0·3%) in Canada between 2020 and 2050, compared with undisrupted screening. A 6-month disruption would result in 803-1803 additional diagnoses (relative increase 0·2-0·4%) and 678-881 additional deaths (relative increase 0·4-0·6%) in the Netherlands, 3552 additional diagnoses (relative increase 0·6%) and 1961 additional deaths (relative increase 1·0%) in Australia, and 2844 additional diagnoses (relative increase 0·3%) and 1319 additional deaths (relative increase 0·4%) in Canada between 2020 and 2050, compared with undisrupted screening. A 12-month disruption would result in 1619-3615 additional diagnoses (relative increase 0·4-0·9%) and 1360-1762 additional deaths (relative increase 0·8-1·2%) in the Netherlands, 7140 additional diagnoses (relative increase 1·2%) and 3968 additional deaths (relative increase 2·0%) in Australia, and 5212 additional diagnoses (relative increase 0·6%) and 2366 additional deaths (relative increase 0·8%) in Canada between 2020 and 2050, compared with undisrupted screening. Providing immediate catch-up screening could minimise the impact of the disruption, restricting the relative increase in colorectal cancer incidence and deaths between 2020 and 2050 to less than 0·1% in all countries. A post-disruption decrease in participation could increase colorectal cancer incidence by 0·2-0·9% and deaths by 0·6-1·6% between 2020 and 2050, compared with undisrupted screening. INTERPRETATION: Although the projected effect of short-term disruption to colorectal cancer screening is modest, such disruption will have a marked impact on colorectal cancer incidence and deaths between 2020 and 2050 attributable to missed screening. Thus, it is crucial that, if disrupted, screening programmes ensure participation rates return to previously observed rates and provide catch-up screening wherever possible, since this could mitigate the impact on colorectal cancer deaths. FUNDING: Cancer Council New South Wales, Health Canada, and Dutch National Institute for Public Health and Environment.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Early Detection of Cancer , Occult Blood , Aged , Australia/epidemiology , Canada/epidemiology , Colorectal Neoplasms/epidemiology , Humans , Incidence , Middle Aged , Netherlands/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL