Emily A Burger1,2, Erik El Jansen3, James Killen4, Inge McM de Kok3, Megan A Smith4,5, Stephen Sy1, Niels Dunnewind3, Nicole G Campos1, Jennifer S Haas6, Sarah Kobrin7, Aruna Kamineni8, Karen Canfell4,5, Jane J Kim1. 1. Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Department of Health Management and Health Economics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. 3. Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Department of Public Health, Rotterdam, Netherlands. 4. Cancer Research Division, Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia. 5. School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 6. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 7. National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, Rockville, MD, USA. 8. Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To quantify the secondary impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic disruptions to cervical cancer screening in the United States, stratified by step in the screening process and primary test modality, on cervical cancer burden. METHODS: We conducted a comparative model-based analysis using three independent NCI Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network cervical models to quantify the impact of eight alternative COVID-19-related screening disruption scenarios compared to a scenario of no disruptions. Scenarios varied by the duration of the disruption (6 or 24 months), steps in the screening process being disrupted (primary screening, surveillance, colposcopy, excisional treatment), and primary screening modality (cytology alone or cytology plus human papillomavirus "cotesting"). RESULTS: The models consistently showed that COVID-19-related disruptions yield small net increases in cervical cancer cases by 2027, which are greater for women previously screened with cytology compared with cotesting. When disruptions affected all four steps in the screening process under cytology-based screening, there were an additional 5-7 and 38-45 cases per one million screened for 6- and 24-month disruptions, respectively. In contrast, under cotesting, there were additional 4-5 and 35-45 cases per one million screened for 6- and 24-month disruptions, respectively. The majority (58-79%) of the projected increases in cases under cotesting were due to disruptions to surveillance, colposcopies, or excisional treatment, rather than to primary screening. CONCLUSIONS: Women in need of surveillance, colposcopies, or excisional treatment, or whose last primary screen did not involve human papillomavirus testing, may comprise priority groups for reintroductions.
OBJECTIVES: To quantify the secondary impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic disruptions to cervical cancer screening in the United States, stratified by step in the screening process and primary test modality, on cervical cancer burden. METHODS: We conducted a comparative model-based analysis using three independent NCI Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network cervical models to quantify the impact of eight alternative COVID-19-related screening disruption scenarios compared to a scenario of no disruptions. Scenarios varied by the duration of the disruption (6 or 24 months), steps in the screening process being disrupted (primary screening, surveillance, colposcopy, excisional treatment), and primary screening modality (cytology alone or cytology plus human papillomavirus "cotesting"). RESULTS: The models consistently showed that COVID-19-related disruptions yield small net increases in cervical cancer cases by 2027, which are greater for women previously screened with cytology compared with cotesting. When disruptions affected all four steps in the screening process under cytology-based screening, there were an additional 5-7 and 38-45 cases per one million screened for 6- and 24-month disruptions, respectively. In contrast, under cotesting, there were additional 4-5 and 35-45 cases per one million screened for 6- and 24-month disruptions, respectively. The majority (58-79%) of the projected increases in cases under cotesting were due to disruptions to surveillance, colposcopies, or excisional treatment, rather than to primary screening. CONCLUSIONS: Women in need of surveillance, colposcopies, or excisional treatment, or whose last primary screen did not involve human papillomavirus testing, may comprise priority groups for reintroductions.
Entities:
Keywords:
COVID-19; cervical cancer screening; simulation modeling
Authors: Mark Schiffman; Nicolas Wentzensen; Sholom Wacholder; Walter Kinney; Julia C Gage; Philip E Castle Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-01-31 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Katharine A Rendle; Mark Schiffman; Li C Cheung; Walter K Kinney; Barbara Fetterman; Nancy E Poitras; Thomas Lorey; Philip E Castle Journal: Prev Med Date: 2017-12-27 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Susan J Curry; Alex H Krist; Douglas K Owens; Michael J Barry; Aaron B Caughey; Karina W Davidson; Chyke A Doubeni; John W Epling; Alex R Kemper; Martha Kubik; C Seth Landefeld; Carol M Mangione; Maureen G Phipps; Michael Silverstein; Melissa A Simon; Chien-Wen Tseng; John B Wong Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-08-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Emily A Burger; Inge M C M de Kok; Emily Groene; James Killen; Karen Canfell; Shalini Kulasingam; Karen M Kuntz; Suzette Matthijsse; Catherine Regan; Kate T Simms; Megan A Smith; Stephen Sy; Fernando Alarid-Escudero; Vivek Vaidyanathan; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Jane J Kim Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Emily A Burger; Megan A Smith; James Killen; Stephen Sy; Kate T Simms; Karen Canfell; Jane J Kim Journal: Lancet Public Health Date: 2020-02-10
Authors: Elisabeth F Beaber; Aruna Kamineni; Andrea N Burnett-Hartman; Brian Hixon; Sarah C Kobrin; Christopher I Li; Malia Oliver; Katharine A Rendle; Celette Sugg Skinner; Kaitlin Todd; Yingye Zheng; Rebecca A Ziebell; Erica S Breslau; Jessica Chubak; Douglas A Corley; Robert T Greenlee; Jennifer S Haas; Ethan A Halm; Stacey Honda; Christine Neslund-Dudas; Debra P Ritzwoller; Joanne E Schottinger; Jasmin A Tiro; Anil Vachani; V Paul Doria-Rose Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2022-08-02 Impact factor: 4.090
Authors: Jennifer C Spencer; Noel T Brewer; Tamera Coyne-Beasley; Justin G Trogdon; Morris Weinberger; Stephanie B Wheeler Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2021-09-09 Impact factor: 4.254
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: Emily A Burger; Inge M C M de Kok; James F O'Mahony; Matejka Rebolj; Erik E L Jansen; Daniel D de Bondt; James Killen; Sharon J Hanley; Alejandra Castanon; Jane J Kim; Karen Canfell; Megan A Smith; Mary Caroline Regan Journal: medRxiv Date: 2022-07-25
Authors: Inge M C M de Kok; James F O'Mahony; Emily A Burger; Matejka Rebolj; Erik E L Jansen; Daniel D de Bondt; James Killen; Sharon J Hanley; Alejandra Castanon; Mary Caroline Regan; Jane J Kim; Karen Canfell; Megan A Smith Journal: Elife Date: 2022-10-12 Impact factor: 8.713