Decline and incomplete recovery in cancer diagnoses during the COVID-19 pandemic in Belgium: a year-long, population-level analysis.

BACKGROUND: Oncological care was considerably impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Worrisome declines in diagnostic procedures and cancer diagnoses in 2020 have been reported; however, nationwide, population-based evidence is limited. Quantification of the magnitude and distribution of the remaining outstanding diagnoses is likewise lacking. METHODS: Using accelerated delivery of data from pathology laboratories to the Belgian Cancer Registry, we compared the nationwide rates of new diagnoses of invasive cancers in 2020 to 2019. RESULTS: We observed a 44% reduction in total diagnoses of invasive cancers in April 2020 compared with April 2019, coinciding with the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. The reduction was largest in older patients and for skin cancers (melanoma and nonmelanoma). Reductions in diagnosis were less pronounced among children and adolescents (0-19 years). A smaller decline was observed for most cancers with typically poorer prognosis or obvious symptoms, including some hematological malignancies, lung, and pancreatic cancer. Suspension of organized population screening programs was reflected in a strong decline in diagnosis in the screening age groups for female breast cancer (56%) and for colorectal cancer in both men (49%) and women (60%). The number of diagnoses began to increase from the end of April and stabilized at the beginning of June at or just above 2019 levels. There has yet to be a complete recovery in cancer diagnoses, with an estimated 6%, or ∼4000 diagnoses, still outstanding for all of 2020. Among solid tumors, head and neck cancers have the largest remaining year-over-year decrease in diagnoses at 14%. CONCLUSION: These results add to the evidence of a profound impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on oncological care and identify groups at risk for continuing diagnostic delays. These data should stimulate health care providers worldwide to facilitate targeted, accessible, and efficient procedures for detection of cancers affected by this delay.

Influence of aspirin and non-aspirin NSAID use on ovarian and endometrial cancer: Summary of epidemiologic evidence of cancer risk and prognosis.

Increasing evidence supports a role for aspirin use in reducing the incidence and mortality of several cancer types. This has spurred a new wave of interest in this widely used drug. In this review, we present and evaluate the epidemiologic evidence of the association between the use of aspirin and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and the incidence and prognosis of ovarian and endometrial cancer. The evidence of a preventive effect of NSAID use on risk of ovarian or endometrial cancer is based primarily on results from observational studies and, consequently, is only suggestive. Overall, observational studies indicate modest reductions in risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer with aspirin use, whereas the results for non-aspirin NSAID use are equivocal. The strongest inverse associations have been reported for long-term consistent aspirin use, notably among subgroups of users (e.g., those with high body mass index). Few studies have evaluated the influence of NSAID use on the mortality of ovarian or endometrial cancer, and substantial heterogeneity of study characteristics and results preclude any conclusions. Additional studies of aspirin and non-aspirin NSAID use and ovarian or endometrial cancer risk and prognosis are warranted. In the present review, we discuss the importance of comprehensive exposure definitions (i.e., duration, timing, consistency and intensity/dose) and evaluation of potential effect modification according to user characteristics, with the aim of identifying women who may experience the largest benefit of aspirin or non-aspirin NSAID use on risk or prognosis of ovarian and endometrial cancer.

Reaching women who do not participate in the regular cervical cancer screening programme by offering self-sampling kits: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

INTRODUCTION: Population coverage for cervical cancer screening is an important determinant explaining differences in the incidence of cervical cancer between countries. Offering devices for self-sampling has the potential to increase participation of hard-to-reach women. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to evaluate the participation after an invitation including a self-sampling device (self-sampling arm) versus an invitation to have a sample taken by a health professional (control arm), sent to under-screened women. RESULTS: Sixteen randomised studies were found eligible. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the pooled participation in the self-sampling arm was 23.6% (95% confidence interval (CI)=20.2-27.3%), when self-sampling kits were sent by mail to all women, versus 10.3% (95% CI=6.2-15.2%) in the control arm (participation difference: 12.6% [95% CI=9.3-15.9]). When women had to opt-in to receive the self-sampling device, as used in three studies, the pooled participation was not higher in the self-sampling compared to the control arm (participation difference: 0.2% [95% CI=-4.5-4.9%]). CONCLUSION: An increased participation was observed in the self-sampling arm compared to the control arm, if self-sampling kits were sent directly to women at their home address. However, the size of the effect varied substantially among studies. Since participation was similar in both arms when women had to opt-in, future studies are warranted to discern opt-in scenarios that are most acceptable to women.