Matejka Rebolj1, Francesca Pesola1, Alejandra Castanon2, Peter Sasieni1. 1. King's College London, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, London, UK. 2. King's College London, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, London, UK. alejandra.castanon@kcl.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted cervical cancer screening services. Assuming increases to screening capacity are unrealistic, we propose two recovery strategies: one extends the screening interval by 6 months for all and the other extends the interval by 36/60 months, but only for women who have already missed being screened. METHODS: Using routine statistics from England we estimate the number of women affected by delays to screening. We used published research to estimate the proportion of screening age women with high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and progression rates to cancer. Under two recovery scenarios, we estimate the impact of COVID-19 on cervical cancer over one screening cycle (3 years at ages 25-49 and 5 years at ages 50-64 years). The duration of disruption in both scenarios is 6 months. In the first scenario, 10.7 million women have their screening interval extended by 6 months. In the second, 1.5 million women (those due to be screened during the disruption) miss one screening cycle, but most women have no delay. RESULTS: Both scenarios result in similar numbers of excess cervical cancers: 630 vs. 632 (both 4.3 per 100,000 women in the population). However, the scenario in which some women miss one screening cycle creates inequalities-they would have much higher rates of excess cancer: 41.5 per 100,000 delayed for screened women compared to those with a 6-month delay (5.9 per 100,000). CONCLUSION: To ensure equity for those affected by COVID-19 related screening delays additional screening capacity will need to be paired with prioritising the screening of overdue women.
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted cervical cancer screening services. Assuming increases to screening capacity are unrealistic, we propose two recovery strategies: one extends the screening interval by 6 months for all and the other extends the interval by 36/60 months, but only for women who have already missed being screened. METHODS: Using routine statistics from England we estimate the number of women affected by delays to screening. We used published research to estimate the proportion of screening age women with high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and progression rates to cancer. Under two recovery scenarios, we estimate the impact of COVID-19 on cervical cancer over one screening cycle (3 years at ages 25-49 and 5 years at ages 50-64 years). The duration of disruption in both scenarios is 6 months. In the first scenario, 10.7 million women have their screening interval extended by 6 months. In the second, 1.5 million women (those due to be screened during the disruption) miss one screening cycle, but most women have no delay. RESULTS: Both scenarios result in similar numbers of excess cervical cancers: 630 vs. 632 (both 4.3 per 100,000 women in the population). However, the scenario in which some women miss one screening cycle creates inequalities-they would have much higher rates of excess cancer: 41.5 per 100,000 delayed for screened women compared to those with a 6-month delay (5.9 per 100,000). CONCLUSION: To ensure equity for those affected by COVID-19 related screening delays additional screening capacity will need to be paired with prioritising the screening of overdue women.
Authors: Daniel Medenwald; Thomas Brunner; Hans Christiansen; Ulrich Kisser; Sina Mansoorian; Dirk Vordermark; Hans-Ulrich Prokosch; Susanne A Seuchter; Lorenz A Kapsner Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2022-01-07 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Emily Dema; Jo Gibbs; Soazig Clifton; Andrew J Copas; Clare Tanton; Julie Riddell; Raquel Bosó Pérez; David Reid; Chris Bonell; Magnus Unemo; Catherine H Mercer; Kirstin R Mitchell; Pam Sonnenberg; Nigel Field Journal: Lancet Public Health Date: 2022-01
Authors: Renata Colombo Bonadio; Ana Paula Messias; Otavio Augusto Moreira; Letícia Vecchi Leis; Bruna Zanin Orsi; Laura Testa; Maria Del Pilar Estevez-Diz Journal: Ecancermedicalscience Date: 2021-10-04
Authors: Beatriz Romero-Hernández; Laura Martínez-García; Mario Rodríguez-Dominguez; Javier Martínez-Sanz; Manuel Vélez-Díaz-Pallarés; Belen Pérez Mies; A Muriel; Francisco Gea; María Jesús Pérez-Elías; Juan Carlos Galán Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2022-07-22