Literature DB >> 33730899

Impact of COVID-19-related care disruptions on cervical cancer screening in the United States.

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.   

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.

Entities:  

Keywords:  COVID-19; cervical cancer screening; simulation modeling

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33730899      PMCID: PMC8484743          DOI: 10.1177/09691413211001097

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Screen        ISSN: 0969-1413            Impact factor:   1.687


  7 in total

Review 1.  Human papillomavirus testing in the prevention of cervical cancer.

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

2.  COVID-19 and cancer.

Authors:  Norman E Sharpless
Journal:  Science       Date:  2020-06-19       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  Adherence patterns to extended cervical screening intervals in women undergoing human papillomavirus (HPV) and cytology cotesting.

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

4.  Screening for Cervical Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

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

5.  Estimating the Natural History of Cervical Carcinogenesis Using Simulation Models: A CISNET Comparative Analysis.

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

6.  Impact of COVID-19 on Cervical Cancer Screening Rates Among Women Aged 21-65 Years in a Large Integrated Health Care System - Southern California, January 1-September 30, 2019, and January 1-September 30, 2020.

Authors:  Maureen J Miller; Lanfang Xu; Jin Qin; Erin E Hahn; Quyen Ngo-Metzger; Brian Mittman; Devansu Tewari; Melissa Hodeib; Patricia Wride; Mona Saraiya; Chun R Chao
Journal:  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep       Date:  2021-01-29       Impact factor: 17.586

7.  Projected time to elimination of cervical cancer in the USA: a comparative modelling study.

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
  7 in total
  8 in total

1.  Evaluating and Improving Cancer Screening Process Quality in a Multilevel Context: The PROSPR II Consortium Design and Research Agenda.

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

2.  Changes in Cancer Screening in the US During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Authors:  Stacey A Fedewa; Jessica Star; Priti Bandi; Adair Minihan; Xuesong Han; K Robin Yabroff; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2022-06-01

3.  Reducing Poverty-Related Disparities in Cervical Cancer: The Role of HPV Vaccination.

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

4.  Impact of disruptions and recovery for established cervical screening programs across a range of high-income country program designs, using COVID-19 as an example: A modelled analysis.

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

5.  Health impacts of COVID-19 disruptions to primary cervical screening by time since last screen: A model-based analysis for current and future disruptions.

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

Review 6.  Cervical Cancer Prophylaxis-State-of-the-Art and Perspectives.

Authors:  Patryk Poniewierza; Grzegorz Panek
Journal:  Healthcare (Basel)       Date:  2022-07-17

7.  Predictors of treatment failure for adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix: Up to 14 years of recorded follow-up.

Authors:  Karen Belkić; Sonia Andersson; Susanna Alder; Miriam Mints; David Megyessi
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2022-08-25       Impact factor: 3.111

8.  A model-based analysis of the health impacts of COVID-19 disruptions to primary cervical screening by time since last screen for current and future disruptions.

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

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.