Quantification of impact of COVID-19 pandemic on cancer screening programmes - a case study from Argentina, Bangladesh, Colombia, Morocco, Sri Lanka, and Thailand.

It is quite well documented that the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted cancer screening services in all countries, irrespective of their resources and healthcare settings. While quantitative estimates on reduction in volume of screening tests or diagnostic evaluation are readily available from the high-income countries, very little data are available from the low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). From the CanScreen5 global cancer screening data repository we identified six LMICs through purposive sampling based on the availability of cancer screening data at least for the years 2019 and 2020. These countries represented those in high human development index (HDI) categories (Argentina, Colombia, Sri Lanka, and Thailand) and medium HDI categories (Bangladesh and Morocco). No data were available from low HDI countries to perform similar analysis. The reduction in the volume of tests in 2020 compared to the previous year ranged from 14.1% in Bangladesh to 72.9% in Argentina (regional programme) for cervical screening, from 14.2% in Bangladesh to 49.4% in Morocco for breast cancer screening and 30.7% in Thailand for colorectal cancer screening. Number of colposcopies was reduced in 2020 compared to previous year by 88.9% in Argentina, 38.2% in Colombia, 27.4% in Bangladesh, and 52.2% in Morocco. The reduction in detection rates of CIN 2 or worse lesions ranged from 20.7% in Morocco to 45.4% in Argentina. Reduction of breast cancer detection by 19.1% was reported from Morocco. No association of the impact of pandemic could be seen with HDI categories. Quantifying the impact of service disruptions in screening and diagnostic tests will allow the programmes to strategize how to ramp up services to clear the backlogs in screening and more crucially in further evaluation of screen positives. The data can be used to estimate the impact on stage distribution and avoidable mortality from these common cancers.

Understanding the public health value and defining preferred product characteristics for therapeutic human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines: World Health Organization consultations, October 2021-March 2022.

The World Health Organization (WHO) global strategy to eliminate cervical cancer (CxCa) could result in >62 million lives saved by 2120 if strategy targets are reached and maintained: 90% of adolescent girls receiving prophylactic human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, 70% of women receiving twice-lifetime cervical cancer screening, and 90% of cervical pre-cancer lesions and invasive CxCa treated. However, the cost and complexity of CxCa screening and treatment approaches has hampered scale-up, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), and new approaches are needed. Therapeutic HPV vaccines (TxV), which could clear persistent high-risk HPV infection and/or cause regression of pre-cancerous lesions, are in early clinical development and might offer one such approach. During October 2021 to March 2022, WHO, in collaboration with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, convened a series of global expert consultations to lay the groundwork for understanding the potential value of TxV in the context of current CxCa prevention efforts and for defining WHO preferred product characteristics (PPCs) for TxV. WHO PPCs describe preferences for vaccine attributes that would help optimize vaccine value and use in meeting the global public health need. This paper reports on the main discussion points and findings from the expert consultations. Experts identified several ways in which TxV might address challenges in current CxCa prevention programmes, but emphasized that the potential value of TxV will depend on their degree of efficacy and how quickly they can be developed and implemented relative to ongoing scale-up of existing interventions. Consultation participants also discussed potential use-cases for TxV, important PPC considerations (e.g., vaccine indications, target populations, and delivery strategies), and critical modelling needs for predicting TxV impact and cost-effectiveness.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the oncology services demand in a middle-income setting with universal health insurance.

Aim: We analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on oncology service demand in a middle-income country with universal health coverage. Methods: We collected data from January 1st-2017 to December 31th-2021 at a reference center in Bogotá-Colombia regarding first-time consultations of cross-cutting services (clinical oncology, hematology, palliative care, radiation oncology); specialized multidisciplinary units (breast, prostate, lung, stomach); inpatient and outpatient systemic therapy; radiotherapy; oncology surgery; and bone marrow transplant. A descriptive time series analysis was performed, estimating monthly percent change and endemic channels. Results: Starting the confinement (April 2020), a general decrease in service demand was observed (R: -14.9% to -90.0%), with an additional but lower decrease in August 2020 coinciding with the first pandemic wave (R: -11.3% to -70.0%). Follow-up visits and ambulatory treatment showed no consistent reductions. New patients' consultations for cross-cutting services had a speedy recovery (1 month), but clinical oncology, specialized units, and in-hospital treatment resumed more slowly. Only breast and stomach cancer showed a sustained reduction in early-stage disease. Women and older patients had a more significant reductionin service demand. Conclusion: Despite no changes in service supply, the confinement induced a significant reduction in service demand. Variations by cancer type, service type, and population demographics deserve careful consideration for a suitable response to the emergency. The speedy recovery and the absence of a significant decrease during subsequent waves of the pandemic suggest patient resiliency and a lower impact than expected in middle-income settings in the presence of universal health insurance.

Objetivo: Analizar el impacto de la pandemia de COVID-19 sobre la demanda de servicios oncológicos. Metodos: Se recolectaron datos de enero 1/2017 hasta diciembre 31/2021 de consulta de primera vez en servicios transversales (oncología clinica, hematología, cuidados paliativos, oncología radioterápica) y servicios especializados multidisciplinarios (mama, próstata, pulmón, estómago), así como de suministro de tratamiento (terapia sistémica ambulatoria y hospitalaria, radioterapia, cirugía oncológica, trasplante de médula ósea), en un centro de referencia en Bogotá-Colombia. Se realizó un análisis descriptivo de series de tiempo estimando el cambio porcentual mensual y los canales endémicos. Resultados: Al inicio del confinamiento obligatorio (abril/2020) hubo una disminución general en la demanda de servicios transversales (R: -14.9% a -90.0%), con nuevo descenso de menor grado en agosto/2020 durante la primera ola de infecciones (R: -11.3% a -70.0%). Las consultas de seguimiento y tratamientos ambulatorios no mostraron reducciones consistentes. Exceptuando oncología clínica, las consultas de primera vez para servicios transversales tuvieron rápida recuperación hasta cifras basales (1 mes), pero las unidades especializadas y los tratamientos intrahospitalarios tuvieron recuperación mas lenta. Únicamente los cánceres de mama y estómago mostraron una reduccion sostenida de estadios tempranos de la enfermedad. La reducción de la demanda fue mas marcada en mujeres y adultos mayores. Conclusión: A pesar de no tener cambios en la oferta, el confinamiento indujo una reducción significativa en la demanda de servicios oncológicos con variación diferencial por tipo de cáncer, servicio y características demográficas de la población. Esto merece consideración especial para generar respuestas adecuadas a las emergencias sanitarias. La rápida recuperación de la demanda y la ausencia de caídas en olas de infección subsiguientes sugieren resiliencia de los pacientes e impacto menor del esperado en países con cobertura de salud universal.

Acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility of the Latin American and Caribbean Code against Cancer: perceptions of decision-makers and health professionals in Argentina.

Background: Cancer is an important public health problem. In Latin America and the Caribbean, there were approximately 1,500,000 new cases of cancer and 700,000 deaths due to cancer in 2020. These figures will increase by 78% by 2040 to more than 2.5 million people diagnosed with cancer each year, who will require medical attention, care and support. However, it is estimated that at least 40% of cancers could be prevented by adopting a healthier lifestyle, reducing risky behaviours and implementing recommended health interventions. Objective: To evaluate the perceptions of health decision-makers and professionals regarding the Latin American and Caribbean Code against Cancer (CLCC) as a support tool for designing and implementing public policies for cancer prevention and control (acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility) in Argentina. Methods: A qualitative study was conducted using individual, semi-structured interviews with health decision-makers and professionals (n = 30). The questions and thematic analysis of the information gathered have been guided by the principles of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting and characteristics of individuals. Results: Health professionals and health decision-makers broadly accepted the proposal of the CLCC as a tool for supporting the design and implementation of public policies for cancer prevention and control, and considered it to be appropriate. Additionally, from the interviewees' perspective, factors should be ensured to guarantee the implementation of the CLCC as a viable public health policy. They also felt it was right to take the CECC as a model and to adapt its content to the specific characteristics of the Latin American population, customs, lifestyle habits, epidemiological characteristics and, in particular, the Argentinian socio-economic context. Interviewees perceived the CLCC as a health intervention whose complexity varied depending on the recommendation, although most of them were feasible. The broad consensus among the interviewees was that the development of the CLCC could yield numerous advantages in improving cancer prevention and control policy, and responding to the needs of the population. It was also considered to be an opportunity to introduce fundamental changes. With regard to the implementation of the CLCC, interviewees reported a favourable institutional climate, since they perceived that it would receive a priority equal to or greater than the ongoing prevention measures, and that it would have the commitment of the health authorities. They also felt that the implementation of the CLCC in their work environment would not be very complicated, and that the decision-makers and professionals had the necessary capacity to implement it. Finally, they felt that the implementation would be facilitated by the participation and consensus of health decision-makers at the primary care level, and negotiation with industrial and environmental sectors. Conclusions: Our study shows that health professionals and decision-makers consider the CLCC to be highly acceptable, appropriate and feasible. This would facilitate its implementation as a tool that could enhance current cancer prevention and control policies in Argentina. The results of the study indicate the necessity for the CLCC to be adapted to the socio-economic context of Argentina, and highlight that population adherence to the CLCC recommendations will depend on complex and diverse factors, especially those involving changing unhealthy behaviours linked to cancer risk.

Global cancer research in the era of COVID-19: a bibliometric analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer across the world have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic due to increased risk of infection and disruption to cancer diagnosis and treatment. Widening of healthcare disparities is expected as the gap between health systems with and without adequate resources to mitigate the pandemic become more apparent. We undertook a bibliometric analysis of research related to cancer and COVID-19 to understand (1) the type of research that has been conducted (e.g. patients, services and systems) and (2) whether the pandemic has impacted the state of global cancer research as measured by research outputs to date. METHODS: An existing filter for cancer research consisting of title words and the names of specialist cancer journals was used to identify cancer and COVID-19 related articles and reviews in the Web of Science (©Clarivate Analytics) between January 2019 and February 2021. RESULTS: One thousand five hundred and forty-five publications were identified. The majority (57%) were reviews, opinion pieces or concerned with modelling impact of delays to diagnosis and treatment. The main research domains focused on managing or estimating COVID-19 risk to cancer patients accounting for 384 papers (25%). High Income countries contributed the largest volume (n = 1,115; 72%), compared to Upper Middle (n = 302; 20%), Lower Middle (n = 122; 8%) and Low Income countries (n = 2.4; 0.2%). No evidence of a reduction in global cancer research output was observed in 2020. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a shift in research focus rather than a decline in absolute output. However, there is variation based on national income and collaborations are minimal. There has been a focus on pan-cancer studies rather than cancer site-specific studies. Strengthening global multidisciplinary research partnerships with teams from diverse backgrounds with regard to gender, clinical expertise and resource setting is essential to prevent the widening of cancer inequalities.

Cancer Research in the Time of COVID-19: A Colombian Narrative.

Cancer research is deficient in Colombia and efforts and resources diverted due to the COVID-19 pandemic could worsen the situation. We explore the impact of the pandemic on cancer research funding, output, and conduct. We sought information at national level and used the experience of an academic reference center to contrast the impact at institutional level. We searched databases and official documents of national governmental institutions, trial registries, hospital registries, and the Web of Science. We interviewed principal investigators (PIs) to retrieve information on the conduct of cancer research. A decline in resource availability and new proposals was observed at the national level with a shift to COVID-19 related research. However, at institutional level there was no decline in the number of cancer research proposals. The predominance of observational studies as opposed to the preponderance of clinical trials and basic science in high-income countries may be related to the lower impact at institutional level. Nevertheless, we found difficulties similar to previous reports for conducting research during the pandemic. PIs reported long recovery times and a great impact on research other than clinical trials, such as observational and qualitative studies. No significant impact on research output was observed. Alternatives to ensure research continuity such as telemedicine and remote data collection have scarcely been implemented given limited access and low technology literacy. In this middle-income setting the situation shows a notable dependency of international collaborations to develop research on COVID-19 and cancer and to overcome challenges for cancer research during the pandemic.

Contingency planning for cancer care in low- and middle-income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid assessment for future disaster resilience.

BACKGROUND: Many countries appear to be ill-prepared in their emergency responses towards the Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, particularly in managing chronic diseases such as cancer. We aimed to gain insight on the preparedness of health systems within low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in maintaining delivery of cancer care amid the pandemic. METHODS: We performed a rapid review of publications focusing on emergency contingency plans for cancer care during the pandemic in LMICs. An online desk research was conducted to identify relevant policy documents, guidelines or scientific publications. RESULTS: Very few LMICs had readily accessible documents to ensure continuity in delivery of cancer care during the pandemic. A majority of publications were focused on delivery of cancer treatment whereas early detection, diagnosis and delivery of supportive and survivorship care received very little attention. Far fewer of the published guidelines appear to have been formulated at the national level by governmental agencies. A vast majority of publications constituted consensus guidelines from professional societies, followed by sharing of best practices from local institutions. Overall, three main strategies have been recommended to maintain delivery of cancer care amid the pandemic in LMICs: 1) Modification of cancer treatment regimens, 2) Changes in methods of administration of curative and supportive cancer care and 3) Implementation of generic measures to reduce the risk of COVID-19 infection in healthcare settings. CONCLUSION: All LMICs should consider collating best practices from the current pandemic and translating them into an explicit cancer preparedness plan, which can be escalated during future disasters.

Medical decisions concerning the end of life for cancer patients in three Colombian hospitals - a survey study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients' end-of-life care may involve complex decision-making processes. Colombia has legislation regarding provision of and access to palliative care and is the only Latin American country with regulation regarding euthanasia. We describe medical end-of-life decision-making practices among cancer patients in three Colombian hospitals. METHODS: Cancer patients who were at the end-of-life and attended in participating hospitals were identified. When these patients deceased, their attending physician was invited to participate. Attending physicians of 261 cancer patients (out of 348 identified) accepted the invitation and answered a questionnaire regarding end-of-life decisions: a.) decisions regarding the withdrawal or withholding of potentially life-prolonging medical treatments, b.) intensifying measures to alleviate pain or other symptoms with hastening of death as a potential side effect, and c.) the administration, supply or prescription of drugs with an explicit intention to hasten death. For each question addressing the first two decision types, we asked if the decision was fully or partially made with the intention or consideration that it may hasten the patient's death. RESULTS: Decisions to withdraw potentially life-prolonging treatment were made for 112 (43%) patients, 16 of them (14%) with an intention to hasten death. For 198 patients (76%) there had been some decision to not initiate potentially life-prolonging treatment. Twenty-three percent of patients received palliative sedation, 97% of all patients received opioids. Six patients (2%) explicitly requested to actively hasten their death, for two of them their wish was fulfilled. In another six patients, medications were used with the explicit intention to hasten death without their explicit request. In 44% (n = 114) of all cases, physicians did not know if their patient had any advance care directives, 26% (n = 38) of physicians had spoken to the patient regarding the possibility of certain treatment decisions to hasten death where this applied. CONCLUSIONS: Decisions concerning the end of life were common for patients with cancer in three Colombian hospitals, including euthanasia and palliative sedation. Physicians and patients often fail to communicate about advance care directives and potentially life-shortening effects of treatment decisions. Specific end-of-life procedures, patients' wishes, and availability of palliative care should be further investigated.

Leveraging vertical COVID-19 investments to improve monitoring of cancer screening programme - A case study from Bangladesh.

Cancer screening programs from majority of the low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) report screening coverage as the only performance indicator, and that too measured through population-based sample surveys. Such information is unreliable and has very little value in assessing programmatic quality and impact. Regular monitoring of key process and outcome indicators based on data collected through a robust information system is essential to ensure quality of a screening programme. Fragmented health systems, limited resources and absence of a culture of systematic evaluation are the major hindrances for most of the LMICs to build electronic information systems to manage screening. The COVID-19 pandemic has created an impetus for the countries to customize the freely available District Health Information Software (DHIS2) to collect electronic data to track the outbreaks and manage containment measures. In the present article we present Bangladesh as an exemplar LMIC that has a (DHIS2) based integrated health information system gradually upgraded to collect individual data of the participants to the national cervical cancer screening program. Such efforts paid rich dividends as the screening program was switched from opportunistic to a population-based one. Moreover, the electronic system could report impact of the pandemic on cancer screening on a monthly basis. The aggregate number of women screened in the year 2020 was 14.1% less compared to 2019. The monthly rate of screening during peak of the outbreak was only 5.1% of the previous year. The rate rapidly recovered as the program intensified screening in the hard-to-reach regions less affected by the pandemic and expanded the outreach services. Other LMICs may emulate Bangladesh example. Customizing the information system developed for pandemic surveillance to collect cancer screening data will help them build back the screening programs better.