Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
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
2.
Prev Med ; 151: 106623, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1240652

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Papillomavirus Infections , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms , Early Detection of Cancer , Female , Humans , Mass Screening , Papillomavirus Infections/diagnosis , Papillomavirus Infections/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/diagnosis , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/prevention & control
4.
Lancet Public Health ; 6(7): e522-e527, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1211226

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Early Detection of Cancer , Mass Screening , Pandemics , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/diagnosis , Female , Health Services Accessibility , Healthcare Disparities , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
5.
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
6.
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
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL