Race and Ethnicity-Adjusted Age Recommendation for Initiating Breast Cancer Screening.

Importance: Breast cancer (BC) is the second leading cause of cancer death in women, and there is a substantial disparity in BC mortality by race, especially for early-onset BC in Black women. Many guidelines recommend starting BC screening from age 50 years; however, the current one-size-fits-all policy to start screening all women from a certain age may not be fair, equitable, or optimal. Objective: To provide race and ethnicity-adapted starting ages of BC screening based on data on current racial and ethnic disparities in BC mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nationwide population-based cross-sectional study was conducted using data on BC mortality in female patients in the US who died of BC in 2011 to 2020. Exposures: Proxy-reported race and ethnicity information was used. The risk-adapted starting age of BC screening by race and ethnicity was measured based on 10-year cumulative risk of BC-specific death. Age-specific 10-year cumulative risk was calculated based on age group-specific mortality data without modeling or adjustment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Disease-specific mortality due to invasive BC in female patients. Results: There were BC-specific deaths among 415 277 female patients (1880 American Indian or Alaska Native [0.5%], 12 086 Asian or Pacific Islander [2.9%], 62 695 Black [15.1%], 28 747 Hispanic [6.9%], and 309 869 White [74.6%]; 115 214 patients died before age 60 years [27.7%]) of any age in the US in 2011 to 2020. BC mortality per 100 000 person-years for ages 40 to 49 years was 27 deaths in Black females, 15 deaths in White females, and 11 deaths in American Indian or Alaska Native, Hispanic, and Asian or Pacific Islander females. When BC screening was recommended to start at age 50 years for all females with a 10-year cumulative risk of BC death of 0.329%, Black females reached this risk threshold level 8 years earlier, at age 42 years, whereas White females reached it at age 51 years, American Indian or Alaska Native and Hispanic females at age 57 years, and Asian or Pacific Islander females 11 years later, at age 61 years. Race and ethnicity-adapted starting ages for Black females were 6 years earlier for mass screening at age 40 years and 7 years earlier for mass screening at age 45 years. Conclusions and Relevance: This study provides evidence-based race-adapted starting ages for BC screening. These findings suggest that health policy makers may consider a risk-adapted approach to BC screening in which individuals who are at high risk are screened earlier to address mortality due to early-onset BC before the recommended age of mass screening.

Breast cancer survivorship in rural settings: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Rural breast cancer survivors (BCS) in the United States face unique challenges during survivorship, related to knowledge and accessibility of resources. Survivorship care plans should address five key areas that include surveillance and screening for new/reoccurring cancer; management of long-term effects of cancer treatment; health promotion; and care coordination/practice implications. To maximize the benefit of survivorship care for rural BCS, it is necessary to better understand their experiences and preferences. METHODS: A systematic review of the extant literature addressing the survivorship needs and interventions for rural BCS was conducted. The following databases were searched for reports published between January, 2007, and December, 2018: PubMed, CINAHL, SCOPUS, PsycINFO (EBSCO), CAB Direct, and Sociological Abstracts. Reports published after 2007 with samples including and comprised of rural BCS in the United States were included. Screening of the search results followed PRISMA guidelines using Covidence systematic review software. RESULTS: Findings were extracted from 30 reports disseminating findings of 14 research studies. The five areas of a survivorship care were counted/accounted for during data extraction. The included reports concentrated on health promotion (e.g., weight loss and exercise) and the management of long-term effects of cancer treatment as key outcomes. There is a gap in the literature addressing care coordination, surveillance, and screening. CONCLUSION: Additional research including interventions for rural BCS that address more survivorship care areas would benefit this population and improve survivorship quality of life for rural BCS.

Breast cancer survivorship care during the COVID-19 pandemic within an urban New York Hospital System.

PURPOSE: To examine clinicodemographic determinants associated with breast cancer survivorship follow-up during COVID-19. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, population-based cohort study including early stage (Stage I-II) breast cancer patients who underwent resection between 2006 and 2018 in a New York City hospital system. The primary outcome was oncologic follow-up prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Secondary analyses compared differences in follow-up by COVID-19 case rates stratified by ZIP code. RESULTS: A total of 2942 patients with early-stage breast cancer were available for analysis. 1588 (54%) of patients had attended follow-up in the year prior to the COVID-19 period but failed to continue to follow-up during the pandemic, either in-person or via telemedicine. 1242 (42%) patients attended a follow-up appointment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Compared with patients who did not present for follow-up during COVID-19, patients who continued their oncologic follow-up during the pandemic were younger (p = 0.049) more likely to have received adjuvant radiation therapy (p = 0.025), and have lower household income (p = 0.031) on multivariate modeling. When patients who live in Bronx, New York, were stratified by ZIP code, there was a modest negative association (r = -0.56) between COVID-19 cases and proportion of patients who continued to follow-up during the COVID-19 period. CONCLUSION: We observed a dramatic disruption in routine breast cancer follow-up during the COVID-19 pandemic. Providers and health systems should emphasize reintegrating patients who missed appointments during COVID-19 back into regular surveillance programs to avoid significant morbidity and mortality from missed breast cancer recurrences.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Breast Cancer Mortality in the US: Estimates From Collaborative Simulation Modeling.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted breast cancer control through short-term declines in screening and delays in diagnosis and treatments. We projected the impact of COVID-19 on future breast cancer mortality between 2020 and 2030. METHODS: Three established Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network breast cancer models modeled reductions in mammography screening use, delays in symptomatic cancer diagnosis, and reduced use of chemotherapy for women with early-stage disease for the first 6 months of the pandemic with return to prepandemic patterns after that time. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the effect of key model parameters, including the duration of the pandemic impact. RESULTS: By 2030, the models project 950 (model range = 860-1297) cumulative excess breast cancer deaths related to reduced screening, 1314 (model range = 266-1325) associated with delayed diagnosis of symptomatic cases, and 151 (model range = 146-207) associated with reduced chemotherapy use in women with hormone positive, early-stage cancer. Jointly, 2487 (model range = 1713-2575) excess breast cancer deaths were estimated, representing a 0.52% (model range = 0.36%-0.56%) cumulative increase over breast cancer deaths expected by 2030 in the absence of the pandemic's disruptions. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the breast cancer mortality impact would be approximately double if the modeled pandemic effects on screening, symptomatic diagnosis, and chemotherapy extended for 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Initial pandemic-related disruptions in breast cancer care will have a small long-term cumulative impact on breast cancer mortality. Continued efforts to ensure prompt return to screening and minimize delays in evaluation of symptomatic women can largely mitigate the effects of the initial pandemic-associated disruptions.

Characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 infection in 45 patients with breast cancer: A multi-center retrospective study in Hubei, China.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic is a significant worldwide health crisis. Breast cancer patients with COVID-19 are fragile and require particular clinical care. This study aimed to identify the clinical characteristics of breast cancer patients with COVID-19 and the risks associated with anti-cancer treatment. METHODS: The medical records of breast cancer patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were collected among 9559 COVID-19 patients from seven designated hospitals from 13th January to 18th March 2020 in Hubei, China. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess risk factors for COVID-19 severity. RESULTS: Of the 45 breast cancer patients with COVID-19, 33 (73.3%) developed non-severe COVID-19, while 12 (26.7%) developed severe COVID-19, of which 3 (6.7%) patients died. The median age was 62 years, and 3 (6.7%) patients had stage IV breast cancer. Univariate analysis showed that age over 75 and the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score were associated with COVID-19 disease severity (P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that patients who received chemotherapy within 7 days had a significantly higher risk for severe COVID-19 (logistic regression model: RR = 13.886, 95% CI 1.014-190.243, P = 0.049; Cox proportional hazards model: HR = 13.909, 95% CI 1.086-178.150, P = 0.043), with more pronounced neutropenia and higher LDH, CRP and procalcitonin levels than other patients (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In our breast cancer cohort, the severity of COVID-19 could be associated with baseline factors such as age over 75 and ECOG scores. Chemotherapy within 7 days before symptom onset could be a risk factor for severe COVID-19, reflected by neutropenia and elevated LDH, CRP and procalcitonin levels.

An inverse stage-shift model to estimate the excess mortality and health economic impact of delayed access to cancer services due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

AIM: Decreased cancer incidence and reported changes to clinical management indicate that the COVID-19 pandemic has delayed cancer diagnosis and treatment. This study aimed to develop and apply a flexible model to estimate the impact of delayed diagnosis and treatment on survival outcomes and healthcare costs based on a shift in the disease stage at treatment initiation. METHODS: A model was developed and made publicly available to estimate population-level health economic outcomes by extrapolating and weighing stage-specific outcomes by the distribution of stages at treatment initiation. It was applied to estimate the impact of 3- and 6-month delays based on Australian data for stage I breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and lung cancer patients, and for T1 melanoma. Two approaches were explored to estimate stage shifts following a delay: (a) based on the relation between time to treatment initiation and overall survival (breast, colorectal, and lung cancer), and (b) based on the tumor growth rate (melanoma). RESULTS: Using a conservative once-off 3-month delay and considering only shifts from stage I/T1 to stage II/T2, 88 excess deaths and $12 million excess healthcare costs were predicted in Australia over 5 years for all patients diagnosed in 2020. For a 6-month delay, excess mortality and healthcare costs were 349 deaths and $46 million over 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: The health and economic impacts of delays in treatment initiation cause an imminent policy concern. More accurate individual patient data on shifts in stage of disease during and after the COVID-19 pandemic are critical for further analyses.

Covid-19 related oncologist's concerns about breast cancer treatment delays and physician well-being (the CROWN study).

PURPOSE: To examine how treatment delays brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the physical and emotional well-being of physicians treating these patients. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of physician breast specialists was posted from April 23rd to June 11th, 2020 on membership list serves and social media platforms of the National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers and the American Society of Breast Surgeons. Physician well-being was measured using 6 COVID-19 burnout emotions and the 4-item PROMIS short form for anxiety and sleep disturbance. We examined associations between treatment delays and physician well-being, adjusting for demographic factors, COVID-19 testing and ten COVID-19 pandemic concerns. RESULTS: 870 physicians completed the survey, 61% were surgeons. The mean age of physicians was 52 and 548 (63.9%) were female. 669 (79.4%) reported some delay in patient care as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. 384 (44.1%) and 529 (60.8%) of physicians scored outside normal limits for anxiety and sleep disturbance, respectively. After adjusting for demographic factors and COVID-19 testing, mean anxiety and COVID-19 burnout scores were significantly higher among physicians whose patients experienced either delays in surgery, adjuvant chemotherapy, radiation, breast imaging or specialty consultation. A multivariable model adjusting for ten physician COVID-19 concerns and delays showed that "delays will impact my emotional well-being" was the strongest concern associated with anxiety, sleep disturbance and COVID-19 burnout factors. CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer treatment delays during the initial surge of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States were associated with a negative impact on physician emotional wellness.

Assessment of Time-to-Treatment Initiation and Survival in a Cohort of Patients With Common Cancers.

Importance: Resource limitations because of pandemic or other stresses on infrastructure necessitate the triage of time-sensitive care, including cancer treatments. Optimal time to treatment is underexplored, so recommendations for which cancer treatments can be deferred are often based on expert opinion. Objective: To evaluate the association between increased time to definitive therapy and mortality as a function of cancer type and stage for the 4 most prevalent cancers in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study assessed treatment and outcome information from patients with nonmetastatic breast, prostate, non-small cell lung (NSCLC), and colon cancers from 2004 to 2015, with data analyzed January to March 2020. Data on outcomes associated with appropriate curative-intent surgical, radiation, or medical therapy were gathered from the National Cancer Database. Exposures: Time-to-treatment initiation (TTI), the interval between diagnosis and therapy, using intervals of 8 to 60, 61 to 120, 121 to 180, and greater than 180 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: 5-year and 10-year predicted all-cause mortality. Results: This study included 2 241 706 patients (mean [SD] age 63 [11.9] years, 1 268 794 [56.6%] women, 1 880 317 [83.9%] White): 1 165 585 (52.0%) with breast cancer, 853 030 (38.1%) with prostate cancer, 130 597 (5.8%) with NSCLC, and 92 494 (4.1%) with colon cancer. Median (interquartile range) TTI by cancer was 32 (21-48) days for breast, 79 (55-117) days for prostate, 41 (27-62) days for NSCLC, and 26 (16-40) days for colon. Across all cancers, a general increase in the 5-year and 10-year predicted mortality was associated with increasing TTI. The most pronounced mortality association was for colon cancer (eg, 5 y predicted mortality, stage III: TTI 61-120 d, 38.9% vs. 181-365 d, 47.8%), followed by stage I NSCLC (5 y predicted mortality: TTI 61-120 d, 47.4% vs 181-365 d, 47.6%), while survival for prostate cancer was least associated (eg, 5 y predicted mortality, high risk: TTI 61-120 d, 12.8% vs 181-365 d, 14.1%), followed by breast cancer (eg, 5 y predicted mortality, stage I: TTI 61-120 d, 11.0% vs. 181-365 d, 15.2%). A nonsignificant difference in treatment delays and worsened survival was observed for stage II lung cancer patients-who had the highest all-cause mortality for any TTI regardless of treatment timing. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, for all studied cancers there was evidence that shorter TTI was associated with lower mortality, suggesting an indirect association between treatment deferral and mortality that may not become evident for years. In contrast to current pandemic-related guidelines, these findings support more timely definitive treatment for intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of surgery delays and survival in breast, lung and colon cancers: Implication for surgical triage during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Thousands of cancer surgeries were delayed during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study examines if surgical delays impact survival for breast, lung and colon cancers. METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched. Articles evaluating the relationship between delays in surgery and overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) or cancer-specific survival (CSS) were included. RESULTS: Of the 14,422 articles screened, 25 were included in the review and 18 (totaling 2,533,355 patients) were pooled for meta-analyses. Delaying surgery for 12 weeks may decrease OS in breast (HR 1.46, 95%CI 1.28-1.65), lung (HR 1.04, 95%CI 1.02-1.06) and colon (HR 1.24, 95%CI 1.12-1.38) cancers. When breast cancers were analyzed by stage, OS was decreased in stages I (HR 1.27, 95%CI 1.16-1.40) and II (HR 1.13, 95%CI 1.02-1.24) but not in stage III (HR 1.20, 95%CI 0.94-1.53). CONCLUSION: Delaying breast, lung and colon cancer surgeries during the COVID-19 pandemic may decrease survival.

Teleoncology or telemedicine for oncology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: the new normal for breast cancer survivors?

Background: Telemedicine is seen as a savior during the COVID-19 pandemic. Materials & methods: This study is a descriptive cross-sectional study conducted with cancer patients who were interviewed via telemedicine from a tertiary care comprehensive oncology center. Results: A total of 421 patients were included in the study and 118 of them (28.0%) were >65 years old. Communication was provided most frequently by voice call (n = 213; 50.5%). The majority of the patients contacted by telemedicine had breast cancer (n = 270; 64.1%). For 135 patients (32.1%) no further examination or intervention was required and the previously planned follow-up visit was postponed by the clinician. Conclusion: This study showed that telemedicine could open a new era for medical oncology specialists.

Prognosis of COVID-19 in patients with breast cancer: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic in the world and posed a great threat to people's health. Several meta-analyses have indicated that many comorbidities were associated with increased risk of COVID-19 severity or mortality. The original report also showed that the mortality rate of COVID-19 in breast cancer patients is more dependent on comorbidities than previous radiation therapy or current anti-cancer therapy. However, no meta-analysis has focused on this aspect. This systematic review aims to assess whether breast cancer will increase the severity and mortality of patients infected with COVID-19 and to explore which factors that may affect the severity or mortality rate of breast cancer patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We will search the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), and Wanfang database from December 1, 2019 to June 30, 2020. Cohort studies comparing the disease severity and mortality of COVID-19 patients with and without breast cancer will be included. Two independent reviewers will assess the risk of bias of the included cohort studies using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We will conduct meta-analyses to calculate the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) using the random-effects model with the Mantel-Haenszel method. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach will be used to rate the quality of the evidence. RESULTS: The results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. CONCLUSION: This study will provide comprehensive evidence for medical staff to adopt effective treatment strategies for breast cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020188208.

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.