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.
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.
Authors: Laia Palència; Albert Espelt; Maica Rodríguez-Sanz; Rosa Puigpinós; Mariona Pons-Vigués; M Isabel Pasarín; Teresa Spadea; Anton E Kunst; Carme Borrell Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2010-02-22 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Esther Toes-Zoutendijk; Monique E van Leerdam; Evelien Dekker; Frank van Hees; Corine Penning; Iris Nagtegaal; Miriam P van der Meulen; Anneke J van Vuuren; Ernst J Kuipers; Johannes M G Bonfrer; Katharina Biermann; Maarten G J Thomeer; Harriët van Veldhuizen; Sonja Kroep; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Gerrit A Meijer; Harry J de Koning; Manon C W Spaander; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2016-11-24 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Nadine Zielonke; Andrea Gini; Erik E L Jansen; Ahti Anttila; Nereo Segnan; Antonio Ponti; Piret Veerus; Harry J de Koning; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2020-01-10 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Andrea Gini; Erik E L Jansen; Nadine Zielonke; Reinier G S Meester; Carlo Senore; Ahti Anttila; Nereo Segnan; Dominika Novak Mlakar; Harry J de Koning; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2020-01-10 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Carolyn M Rutter; Jane J Kim; Reinier G S Meester; Brian L Sprague; Emily A Burger; Ann G Zauber; Mehmet Ali Ergun; Nicole G Campos; Chyke A Doubeni; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Stephen Sy; Oguzhan Alagoz; Natasha Stout; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Douglas A Corley; Anna N A Tosteson Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2017-11-17 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Valérie D V Sankatsing; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Mireille J M Broeders; Harry J de Koning Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2020-06-30 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Miriam P van der Meulen; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; S Lucas Goede; Ernst J Kuipers; Evelien Dekker; Jaap Stoker; Marjolein van Ballegooijen Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-02-27 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Frank van Hees; J Dik F Habbema; Reinier G Meester; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Ann G Zauber Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2014-06-03 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Koen Degeling; Nancy N Baxter; Jon Emery; Mark A Jenkins; Fanny Franchini; Peter Gibbs; G Bruce Mann; Grant McArthur; Benjamin J Solomon; Maarten J IJzerman Journal: Asia Pac J Clin Oncol Date: 2021-02-10 Impact factor: 1.926
Authors: Megan A Smith; Emily A Burger; Alejandra Castanon; Inge M C M de Kok; Sharon J B Hanley; Matejka Rebolj; Michaela T Hall; Erik E L Jansen; James Killen; Xavier O'Farrell; Jane J Kim; Karen Canfell Journal: Prev Med Date: 2021-05-23 Impact factor: 4.637
Authors: Louis Fox; Katharina Beyer; Elke Rammant; Esme Morcom; Mieke Van Hemelrijck; Richard Sullivan; Verna Vanderpuye; Dorothy Lombe; Audrey Tieko Tsunoda; Tezer Kutluk; Nirmala Bhoo-Pathy; Shanmugham C Pramesh; Aasim Yusuf; Christopher M Booth; Omar Shamieh; Sabine Siesling; Deborah Mukherji Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2021-11-24
Authors: Stephen W Duffy; Farah Seedat; Olive Kearins; Mike Press; Jackie Walton; Jonathan Myles; Daniel Vulkan; Nisha Sharma; Anne Mackie Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2022-02-02 Impact factor: 9.075