Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on skin cancer diagnosis: A population-based study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has been unprecedented and has led to drastic reductions in non-urgent medical visits. Deferral of these visits may have critical health impact, including delayed diagnosis for melanoma and other skin cancers. We examined the influence of the pandemic on skin biopsy rates in a large population-based cohort.
METHODS: Using a universal health care claims dataset from Ontario, we examined skin biopsies from January 6, 2020 to September 27, 2020, and compared these to the same period for 2019. Those diagnosed with anogenital cancers, younger than 20 years, residing out-of-province and with lapses in coverage were excluded. The sensitivity and specificity of claims diagnoses compared to a validated algorithm to identify keratinocyte carcinoma (KC), or to the cancer registry for melanoma was evaluated. Factors associated with biopsy during the early pandemic were investigated with modified Poisson regression.
RESULTS: A precipitous drop in total skin biopsies (15% of expected), biopsies for KC (18%) and melanoma (27%) was seen with the onset of COVID-19 cases (p<0.01). Claims diagnoses were of high specificity for KC (99%), and for melanoma (98%), though sensitivity was less (61%, 28% respectively). In adjusted analysis, the elderly (80+ years), females and residents of certain regions were less likely to be biopsied during the pandemic. Subsequently, there were substantial improvements in biopsy rates over 10 weeks. However, compared to 2019, a large backlog of expected cases still remained 28 weeks after lockdown (45,710 all biopsy, 9,104 KC, 595 melanoma).
INTERPRETATION: A drastic reduction in skin biopsies is noted early in the COVID-19 pandemic; this disproportionately affected the elderly, females and certain geographic regions. Though biopsies subsequently increased, a large backlog of cases remained after almost half a year. This will have implications for downstream care of skin cancer. Efforts should be made to limit diagnostic delay.

Introduction

Skin cancer incidence has been increasing in North America over the last decade, mirrored by the number of biopsies for skin cancer [1]. The COVID-19 pandemic has been unprecedented and has led to drastic reductions in non-urgent medical visits. Deferral of these visits may have critical health impact. The impact of the pandemic on skin cancer care has not been well described. There are no reports from Canada, and only two known reports from other countries describing the possible impact. A national report from the Netherlands suggested a drop in skin cancer diagnoses more than for other cancers, though results were not reported according to subtype (e.g. melanoma or squamous cell carcinoma) and data was incomplete [2]. One institutional series from Italy suggested diagnostic delay for melanoma, though generalizability is limited given the narrow population coverage [3]. We hypothesized that the impact on skin cancer care in a Canadian population-level sample would be substantial, with potential differences between skin cancer types and some patient groups. Therefore, we examined the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on the diagnosis of skin cancer via biopsy in a large population-based cohort in a Canadian context, stratifying according melanoma and non-melanoma cancer types.

Methods

Study design

This was a retrospective population-based cohort study.

Study population

Using a universal health care claims dataset from Canada’s most populous province, Ontario (N = 14.7 million), we undertook a population-based study examining skin biopsies from January 6, 2020 to September 27, 2020, and compared these to the same period for 2019. Our primary analysis focused on the early lockdown, and covered January 6, 2020 to April 19, 2020. Those diagnosed with anogenital cancers, younger than 20 years, residing out-of-province, and those who had lapses with provincial medical coverage were excluded (Fig 1, S1 Appendix). This study followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) reporting guideline for cohort studies.

Fig 1

Flow diagram for selection of study cohort of skin biopsy claims from January 6, 2020 to April 19, 2020.

Data sources

Claims data from the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) were utilized for outcome measurement. OHIP records are updated monthly with claims validated and processed by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC). As described below, data from the Ontario Cancer Registry (OCR) were used to evaluate the specificity of melanoma claims to melanoma diagnoses. The OCR is known for its high level of population coverage [4], with annual capture rates generally 94% or more for melanoma in a major validation study [5]. Age and sex were determined from the Registered Persons Database maintained by MOHLTC. Area-level income quintiles were determined based on quintile rankings of neighbourhood average income within each census metropolitan area or census agglomeration. Comorbidity was based on the Elixhauser comorbidity index using CIHI Discharge Abstract Database (DAD) and Same Day Surgery (SDS) data available up to March 31, 2020, with zero indicating no identified comorbidity and one point for each additional comorbidity in the index [6]. A five-year lookback window for admissions was utilized. Diagnostic codes for cancer metastasis or solid tumor without metastasis were not included in the comorbidity measure. Rurality was based on the 2008 Rurality Index for Ontario scale, ranging from 0 to 100, with 100 indicating the highest degree of rurality [7]. The biopsying physician main specialty was based on the ICES Physician Database.

Outcomes

Claims for first skin biopsy extracted on July 21, 2020 in each study interval (January 7 to April 21, 2019 and January 6 to April 19, 2020) for each of the following were considered: 1) any diagnosis (2019: N = 57,744; 2020: N = 42,848), 2) keratinocyte carcinoma (KC) [basal cell carcinoma (BCC) or squamous cell carcinoma (SCC); ICD-9: 173)] (2019: N = 13,734; 2020: N = 10,776) and 3) melanoma (ICD-9: 172) (2019: N = 910; 2020: N = 736). Claims diagnoses were investigated as they were available in a more timely fashion compared to OCR, and provided more complete information on non-melanoma skin cancers. Trends in biopsies beyond the early lockdown period (weeks 11 to 15 of 2020) were quantified up to week 38 of 2020 based on administrative data extracted on February 11, 2021.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were conducted using the SAS software version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). Two-sided statistical significance was a p-value<0.05. Descriptive statistics of the patient socio-demographics and general health characteristics were first generated for the study cohort of skin biopsy claims for the first 15 weeks (starting on Monday) of 2020, and for comparison, the first 15 weeks of 2019. Results were stratified by the pre-COVID-19 (Weeks 1–10) and COVID-19 (Weeks 11–15) periods defined by the Declaration of Emergency in Ontario enacted on March 17, 2020.

For comparing proportional change in biopsy rates between KC and melanoma outcomes in the COVID-19 era, Pearson’s chi-squared test was used to evaluate the difference between 2019 and 2020. To evaluate sensitivity and specificity of a KC claims diagnosis to a confirmed cancer diagnosis, we compared OHIP biopsy claims for July 2018-June 2019 to an algorithm validated in Ontario using pathology reports [8]. This algorithm was not directly used as an outcome for our study, as we lacked the required 6-month follow-up period. For melanoma, we compared claims diagnoses to the provincial cancer registry [5]. The period of selection for this analysis was based on the availability of complete registry data. Modified Poisson regression was then used to evaluate the patient characteristics between the COVID-19 and pre-COVID-19 eras for the first 15 weeks of 2020. The potential predictors that were modeled in the unadjusted analyses were included in the full adjusted model.

Ethics approval

This study was approved and overseen by the Queen’s University Health Sciences Research Ethics Board (Study ONGY-579-20), with a waiver of informed consent based on the Personal Health Information Protection Act, Section 44(1), which allows waivers of informed consent for research meeting criteria including whether the research can be accomplished without the requested personal health information, research that is in the public interest, safeguards for privacy, and impracticality of obtaining informed consent. Analyses were conducted using anonymized encoded data sources. Administrative records for the study population covered January 6, 2020 to September 27, 2020, and the same period for 2019, with a 5-year look back to measure the comorbidity index, while records for sensitivity and specificity evaluation covered July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019.

Results

There were 42,848 with a first skin biopsy in weeks 1 to 15 of 2020 (Fig 1). In this cohort, the median age was 63 years (interquartile range (IQR): 50–74 years), and 51% were female. This was the same for the 57,744 people with a first skin biopsy in weeks 1 to 15 of 2019 (S1 Appendix). Many patient factors (e.g., age, income quintiles, rurality, Elixhauser comorbidity index) were similar between the pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 periods in 2020 (Table 1).

Table 1

Patient characteristics for all biopsy claims for the first 15 weeks (starting on Monday) of 2019 and 2020.

Patient Characteristics	2019			2020
	Weeks 1–10 N = 37,938	Weeks 11–15 N = 19,806	Total N = 57,744	Pre-COVID-19 Weeks 1–10 N = 39,224	COVID-19 Weeks 11–15 N = 3,624	Total N = 42,848
Age
Mean ± SD	61.17 ± 16.94	61.42 ± 17.08	61.26 ± 16.99	61.73 ± 16.90	60.82 ± 16.52	61.65 ± 16.87
Median (IQR)	63 (50–74)	63 (50–74)	63 (50–74)	63 (50–74)	63 (50–73)	63 (50–74)
Age (categorized)
20–59	16,353 (43.10%)	8,428 (42.55%)	24,781 (42.92%)	16,370 (41.73%)	1,536 (42.38%)	17,906 (41.79%)
60–69	8,495 (22.39%)	4,361 (22.02%)	12,856 (22.26%)	8,853 (22.57%)	887 (24.48%)	9,740 (22.73%)
70–79	7,519 (19.82%)	4,049 (20.44%)	11,568 (20.03%)	7,961 (20.30%)	742 (20.47%)	8,703 (20.31%)
80+	5,571 (14.68%)	2,968 (14.99%)	8,539 (14.79%)	6,040 (15.40%)	459 (12.67%)	6,499 (15.17%)
Sex
Female	19,484 (51.36%)	10,244 (51.72%)	29,728 (51.48%)	20,138 (51.34%)	1,725 (47.60%)	21,863 (51.02%)
Male	18,454 (48.64%)	9,562 (48.28%)	28,016 (48.52%)	19,086 (48.66%)	1,899 (52.40%)	20,985 (48.98%)
Income quintiles1
1	5,674 (14.96%)	2,901 (14.65%)	8,575 (14.85%)	5,625 (14.34%)	521 (14.38%)	6,146 (14.34%)
2	6,891 (18.16%)	3,559 (17.97%)	10,450 (18.10%)	6,906 (17.61%)	626 (17.27%)	7,532 (17.58%)
3	7,405 (19.52%)	3,860 (19.49%)	11,265 (19.51%)	7,674 (19.56%)	730 (20.14%)	8,404 (19.61%)
4	7,934 (20.91%)	4,206 (21.24%)	12,140 (21.02%)	8,515 (21.71%)	803 (22.16%)	9,318 (21.75%)
5	9,978 (26.30%)	5,255 (26.53%)	15,233 (26.38%)	10,447 (26.63%)	935 (25.80%)	11,382 (26.56%)
Rurality Index for Ontario1
Urban (0–9)	25,017 (65.94%)	12,816 (64.71%)	37,833 (65.52%)	25,486 (64.98%)	2,244 (61.92%)	27,730 (64.72%)
Suburban (10–39)	9,152 (24.12%)	4,910 (24.79%)	14,062 (24.35%)	9,866 (25.15%)	982 (27.10%)	10,848 (25.32%)
Rural (40+)	3,528 (9.30%)	1,943 (9.81%)	5,471 (9.47%)	3,599 (9.18%)	360 (9.93%)	3,959 (9.24%)
Place of residence (LHIN)
01	2,103 (5.54%)	1,093 (5.52%)	3,196 (5.53%)	2,351 (5.99%)	155 (4.28%)	2,506 (5.85%)
02	4,075 (10.74%)	2,098 (10.59%)	6,173 (10.69%)	4,173 (10.64%)	323 (8.91%)	4,496 (10.49%)
03	2,156 (5.68%)	1,073 (5.42%)	3,229 (5.59%)	2,213 (5.64%)	184 (5.08%)	2,397 (5.59%)
04	4,592 (12.10%)	2,440 (12.32%)	7,032 (12.18%)	4,296 (10.95%)	453 (12.50%)	4,749 (11.08%)
05	1,403 (3.70%)	718 (3.63%)	2,121 (3.67%)	1,495 (3.81%)	99 (2.73%)	1,594 (3.72%)
06	2,931 (7.73%)	1,483 (7.49%)	4,414 (7.64%)	3,028 (7.72%)	308 (8.50%)	3,336 (7.79%)
07	3,286 (8.66%)	1,740 (8.79%)	5,026 (8.70%)	3,552 (9.06%)	270 (7.45%)	3,822 (8.92%)
08	3,997 (10.54%)	2,082 (10.51%)	6,079 (10.53%)	4,239 (10.81%)	331 (9.13%)	4,570 (10.67%)
09	3,462 (9.13%)	1,813 (9.15%)	5,275 (9.14%)	3,652 (9.31%)	300 (8.28%)	3,952 (9.22%)
10	1,789 (4.72%)	891 (4.50%)	2,680 (4.64%)	1,751 (4.46%)	186 (5.13%)	1,937 (4.52%)
11	3,764 (9.92%)	2,069 (10.45%)	5,833 (10.10%)	3,957 (10.09%)	358 (9.88%)	4,315 (10.07%)
12	2,036 (5.37%)	1,081 (5.46%)	3,117 (5.40%)	2,215 (5.65%)	388 (10.71%)	2,603 (6.07%)
13	1,826 (4.81%)	947 (4.78%)	2,773 (4.80%)	1,824 (4.65%)	214 (5.91%)	2,038 (4.76%)
14	518 (1.37%)	278 (1.40%)	796 (1.38%)	478 (1.22%)	55 (1.52%)	533 (1.24%)
Elixhauser comorbidity index2
0	30,176 (79.54%)	15,875 (80.15%)	46,051 (79.75%)	31,265 (79.71%)	2,944 (81.24%)	34,209 (79.84%)
1–2	5,617 (14.81%)	2,824 (14.26%)	8,441 (14.62%)	5,755 (14.67%)	491 (13.55%)	6,246 (14.58%)
3+	2,145 (5.65%)	1,107 (5.59%)	3,252 (5.63%)	2,204 (5.62%)	189 (5.22%)	2,393 (5.58%)
Physician specialty billing biopsy claims
Dermatology	19,061 (50.24%)	9,908 (50.03%)	28,969 (50.17%)	19,982 (50.94%)	1,810 (49.94%)	21,792 (50.86%)
GP/FP	10,963 (28.90%)	6,026 (30.43%)	16,989 (29.42%)	11,375 (29.00%)	1,058 (29.19%)	12,433 (29.02%)
General surgery	2,287 (6.03%)	1,247 (6.30%)	3,534 (6.12%)	2,354 (6.00%)	185 (5.10%)	2,539 (5.93%)
Plastic surgery	2,775 (7.31%)	1,327 (6.70%)	4,102 (7.10%)	2,560 (6.53%)	301 (8.31%)	2,861 (6.68%)
Otolaryngology	1,369 (3.61%)	601 (3.03%)	1,970 (3.41%)	1,273 (3.25%)	122 (3.37%)	1,395 (3.26%)
Other	1,483 (3.91%)	697 (3.52%)	2,180 (3.78%)	1,680 (4.28%)	148 (4.08%)	1,828 (4.27%)

Abbreviations

SD: standard deviation, IQR: interquartile range, LHIN: Local Health Integration Network, GP/FP: general practitioner/family practitioner.

Notes

1Column percentages may not sum to 100% due to missing data.

2Diagnostic codes for cancer metastasis or solid tumor without metastasis were excluded from the comorbidity score.

A precipitous drop in the number of skin biopsies was observed starting in mid-March 2020, coinciding with the report of COVID-19 in Ontario and announcement of emergency measures. Compared to 2019, only 15% of the expected numbers of all skin biopsies, and those undertaken in conjunction with a diagnostic code for KC (18%) and melanoma (27%) were observed (Fig 2). The drop in KC-associated biopsies was greater than for melanoma (p<0.01).

Fig 2

A. Time trends of all skin biopsy claims for the first 38 weeks (starting on Monday) of 2019 and 2020 in Ontario in relation to COVID-19 cases in Ontario, Canada. B. Time trends of skin biopsy claims associated with a diagnosis of keratinocyte carcinoma for the first 38 weeks (starting on Monday) of 2019 and 2020 in relation to COVID-19 cases in Ontario, Canada. C. Time trends of skin biopsy claims associated with a diagnosis of melanoma for the first 38 weeks (starting on Monday) of 2019 and 2020 in Ontario in relation to COVID-19 cases in Ontario, Canada.

We found our results of high specificity compared to a validated algorithm [8] to identify KC (87% accuracy, 61% sensitivity, 99% specificity). Similarly, ICD-9 claim codes are highly specific for melanoma, compared to the OCR (98% accuracy, 28% sensitivity, 98% specificity). Importantly, although claims-based diagnoses lacked pathological confirmation, regardless of claim diagnosis, biopsies dropped dramatically.

We investigated whether any group of patients were disproportionately affected during the early lockdown (weeks 11 to 15 of 2020). In the adjusted analysis, elderly patients (80+ years vs. 20–59 years, relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.81 (0.73–0.90), p<0.01) and patients residing in Southwestern Ontario (01, 02) and the Greater Toronto Area (05, 07, 08, 09) compared to the South East LHIN (10) were less likely to have a skin biopsy in the COVID-19 era (Table 2). Furthermore, male patients (RR: 1.16 (1.09–1.23), p<0.01) and patients biopsied by plastic surgeons (plastic surgeon vs. other specialists, RR: 1.37 (1.13–1.66), p<0.01) were more likely to have a skin biopsy in the COVID-19 era.

Table 2

Relative risks for comparing all skin biopsy claims between COVID-19 (Weeks 11–15) and pre-COVID-19 (Weeks 1–10) periods for the first 15 weeks (starting on Monday) of 2020.

Patient Characteristics	Unadjusted Analysis		Adjusted Analysis1
	RR (95% CI)	P-Value	RR (95% CI)	P-Value
Age (categorized)
20–59	Reference		Reference
60–69	1.06 (0.98–1.15)	0.147	1.03 (0.95–1.11)	0.496
70–79	0.99 (0.91–1.08)	0.886	0.96 (0.88–1.05)	0.381
80+	0.83 (0.75–0.91)	<0.001	0.81 (0.73–0.90)	<0.001
Sex
Female	Reference		Reference
Male	1.15 (1.08–1.22)	<0.001	1.16 (1.09–1.23)	<0.001
Income quintiles
1	Reference		Reference
2	0.99 (0.88–1.11)	0.850	0.99 (0.89–1.11)	0.881
3	1.03 (0.92–1.15)	0.582	1.02 (0.91–1.13)	0.751
4	1.03 (0.92–1.14)	0.649	1.00 (0.90–1.11)	0.947
5	0.98 (0.88–1.08)	0.648	0.95 (0.85–1.05)	0.294
Rurality Index for Ontario
Urban (0–9)	0.89 (0.80–0.99)	0.031	1.01 (0.90–1.14)	0.822
Suburban (10–39)	1.00 (0.89–1.12)	0.939	1.11 (0.98–1.25)	0.105
Rural (40+)	Reference		Reference
Place of residence (LHIN)
01	0.65 (0.53–0.80)	<0.001	0.65 (0.53–0.80)	<0.001
02	0.75 (0.63–0.89)	0.001	0.80 (0.67–0.95)	0.012
03	0.80 (0.66–0.98)	0.028	0.84 (0.69–1.02)	0.075
04	1.00 (0.85–1.18)	0.982	1.03 (0.87–1.21)	0.723
05	0.65 (0.51–0.82)	<0.001	0.67 (0.52–0.85)	0.001
06	0.97 (0.81–1.15)	0.714	1.04 (0.86–1.24)	0.709
07	0.74 (0.62–0.89)	0.001	0.78 (0.65–0.94)	0.010
08	0.76 (0.64–0.91)	0.002	0.79 (0.66–0.94)	0.009
09	0.80 (0.67–0.95)	0.011	0.81 (0.68–0.97)	0.022
10	Reference		Reference
11	0.87 (0.74–1.04)	0.118	0.93 (0.78–1.11)	0.414
12	1.56 (1.33–1.85)	<0.001	1.67 (1.41–1.97)	<0.001
13	1.08 (0.89–1.31)	0.440	1.15 (0.95–1.39)	0.157
14	1.14 (0.85–1.53)	0.381	1.21 (0.90–1.63)	0.212
Elixhauser comorbidity index2
0	Reference		Reference
1–2	0.92 (0.84–1.01)	0.079	0.93 (0.84–1.02)	0.123
3+	0.92 (0.79–1.06)	0.228	0.96 (0.83–1.11)	0.561
Physician specialty billing biopsy claims
Dermatology	1.02 (0.87–1.20)	0.789	1.06 (0.90–1.24)	0.510
GP/FP	1.04 (0.88–1.23)	0.630	1.02 (0.86–1.20)	0.833
General surgery	0.89 (0.72–1.09)	0.261	0.81 (0.66–1.00)	0.054
Plastic surgery	1.29 (1.07–1.56)	0.007	1.37 (1.13–1.66)	0.001
Otolaryngology	1.09 (0.86–1.37)	0.478	1.05 (0.83–1.32)	0.688
Other	Reference		Reference

Abbreviations

RR: relative risk, CI: confidence interval, LHIN: Local Health Integration Network, GP/FP: general practitioner/family practitioner.

Notes

1The full adjusted model contains all variables in the unadjusted analyses.

2Diagnostic codes for cancer metastasis or solid tumor without metastasis were excluded from the comorbidity score.

Keratinocyte cancer-associated biopsies showed similar results between the COVID-19 and pre-COVID-19 periods: Elderly patients (70–79 years vs. 20–59 years, RR: 0.83 (0.70–0.99), p = 0.03; 80+ years vs. 20–59 years, RR: 0.69 (0.57–0.83), p<0.01) and patients residing in Southwestern Ontario (02) and the Greater Toronto Area (05, 08, 09) compared to the South East LHIN (10) were less likely to have a KC claims diagnosis in the COVID-19 era, while male patients (RR: 1.25 (1.11–1.41), p<0.01) were more likely to have KC-associated biopsies in the COVID-19 era compared with pre-COVID-19 era (S2 and S3 Appendices).

For melanoma-associated biopsies, there were similar trends for age (80+ years vs. 20–59 years, RR: 0.70 (0.36–1.36), p = 0.29) and male sex (RR: 1.15 (0.77–1.72), p = 0.49), though findings were not significant (S4 and S5 Appendices). Patients residing in higher income neighborhoods (5 vs. 1, RR: 2.59 (1.20–5.60), p = 0.02) and with higher comorbidities (3+ vs. 0, RR: 2.01 (1.09–3.71), p = 0.03) were more likely to have a biopsy in the COVID-19 era while patients residing in suburban areas were less likely (suburban vs. rural, RR: 0.54 (0.30–0.98), p = 0.04). Biopsies for melanoma in the COVID-19 era were proportionately less likely to be performed by dermatologists (dermatologist vs. otolaryngologist or other specialists, RR: 0.52 (0.30–0.92), p = 0.02) or GPs/FPs (GP/FP vs. otolaryngologist or other specialists, RR: 0.36 (0.17–0.73), p = 0.01) compared with the pre-COVID-19 period.

Following the precipitous drops in skin biopsies seen in the early lockdown (weeks 11–15), a slow increase in numbers of skin biopsies was observed over the following 10 weeks. However, following lockdown, skin biopsy rates in most weeks of 2020 did not meet those of the same week in 2019 (Fig 2A–2C). As skin cancer incidence is expected to increase from year to year, this deficit is noticeable, with 45,710 fewer cases for all skin biopsies, 9,104 for KC and 595 for melanoma between weeks 11–38 of 2020, compared to 2019 weeks 11–38.

Interpretation

Using a claims-based method in a Canadian population, large drops in observed rates were seen with the onset of COVID-19 cases in Ontario for the total number of skin biopsies (15% of expected), and skin biopsies specifically performed in conjunction with a diagnostic code for keratinocyte carcinoma (18% of expected) and melanoma (27% of expected) (p<0.01). A differential change between KC biopsies and melanoma biopsies suggests a triage effect, though changes in skin biopsy in all categories was large, and precipitous. As overall demographic characteristics of the 2020 and 2019 data for the same period were similar, it is evident some patient groups were disproportionately affected during the lockdown, with biopsies less likely among females, the elderly (80+ years), and residents of certain regions in the weeks after the shutdown than in the prior 10 weeks. Moreover, despite increases in biopsies following the early lockdown, a large backlog in expected skin biopsies persisted to the end of the study period, which was almost half a year beyond the early lockdown (45,710 all biopsy, 9,104 KC, 595 melanoma).

Our findings provide direct evidence of the impact of COVID-19 in skin cancer care in a Canadian setting, and augment the very limited data on impact of the pandemic in this setting. A report from the Netherlands suggests our findings may be part of a broader trend, with observed drops reported in diagnosis of non-basal cell carcinoma skin cancers, in a limited data set [2]. A triage effect is suggested by our more detailed population data; there was a significant difference in proportional drop in biopsy, which was greater for biopsies associated with KC diagnoses compared with melanoma. A single-institution report from Italy suggests that diagnostic delay in melanoma during the pandemic may be translating into greater thickness of melanoma at diagnosis, though this requires broader confirmation across jurisdictions [3].

Biopsy trends observed in our population-based sample may be explained by a number of factors, such as: 1) decreased early detection due to public health regulations limiting non-urgent health care provision and social distancing, 2) decreased access to primary health care and specialist care, 3) lack of transportation services, 4) childcare or eldercare responsibilities, 5) limitations of telehealth, and 6) patients refusing to seek care or refusing care due to perceived infection risk.

The variable impact of the early lockdown on skin biopsies may be explained by some of these factors. We observed females and the elderly (80+ years) were less likely to be biopsied during the pandemic, as were residents of certain regions in the province. We also observed a higher proportion of biopsies were performed by plastic surgeons during the initial months of the COVID-19 epidemic in Ontario than by general practitioners, dermatologists or other specialists. Limitations in non-urgent health care provision probably contributed to the proportionally greater decline in biopsies by general practitioners and dermatologists. As plastic surgeons may manage more advanced lesions, their biopsy rates may have stayed proportionately higher compared to other types of health practitioners. Reasons for fewer biopsies among female patients are unclear, but may be multifactorial. This may relate in part to differences in caregiver burden between male and female groups in the cohort. Behavioral differences in care seeking between males and females have also been described in other settings [9]. In a population-based study of melanoma in Ontario, we observed that males were more likely to present with advanced stage disease [10]. If males in our cohort had a higher burden of advanced skin cancer, proportionately more cases would have had concerning findings or symptoms, possibly leading to faster diagnostic biopsy.

We observed that for melanoma, the presence of multiple comorbidities and residence in higher income quintile neighbourhoods were associated with a much greater likelihood for biopsy during the early lockdown. The association with comorbidity may relate to diagnoses captured during admissions for management of advanced melanoma (e.g. for biopsy of lymph node metastasis or symptomatic metastatic disease). Some biopsies for melanoma among the high-comorbidity group may have been for incidental findings during admissions for comorbid conditions, though the same pattern was not seen for keratinocyte carcinoma. The association with income quintile may relate to greater availability of services for skin biopsy in higher income quintile regions [11] or greater self-advocacy or melanoma awareness for those living in these regions. Notably, we previously observed a lower risk of advanced melanoma in less deprived regions in Ontario [10].

The decreased likelihood for biopsy in certain LHINs may be related to the incidence rate of COVID-19 in those regions. Both the Greater Toronto Area and the Southwestern region had higher overall rates of cases of COVID-19 compared to the Southeast LHIN, and decreased likelihood of biopsy.

In the absence of a diagnostic biopsy, it is difficult to ascertain the risk posed by a suspicious skin lesion; a lesion thought to be BCC could be melanoma. The impact of pandemic-related delay on skin cancer outcomes is yet unknown but is a cause for concern given the strong relationship between early detection and skin cancer outcomes. Evidence suggests a possible association of delay in melanoma diagnosis with stage progression and survival [12], and between delay in SCC excision and tumour size, which is known to correlate with metastasis [13]. Moreover, the observed impact on skin cancer diagnosis is expected to be compounded by waiting times required for backlog management in the post-lockdown period, given that our results suggest a large number of cases with deferred biopsies, which will be added to the normal influx of new cases arising on a daily basis. Of great concern, we found that almost half a year after lockdown measures started, there were still large deficits in expected numbers of skin biopsies, with 45,710 fewer cases for all skin biopsies, 9,104 for KC and 595 for melanoma between weeks 11–38 of 2020, compared to 2019 weeks 11–38. This comparison does not take into account the normal expected annual increases in cancer incidence.

Disparities in access to timely diagnosis of melanoma in Ontario are suggested by a recent population based study [10], and Ontario is facing a dermatologist shortage that will likely increase with attrition of the work force [14], compounded by a longstanding deficiency in primary care providers. Canada as a whole and other countries face similar human resource issues [15-17]. Health systems should ensure the timely diagnosis of skin cancer; this should be reflected by public health messages encouraging individuals with suspicious skin lesions to seek evaluation within an appropriate timeline.

There are limitations to our study. We were not able to directly measure changes in pathologic diagnoses of skin cancer or stage as complete data is not available. However, we were able to measure changes in skin biopsies, which ultimately will lead to changes in pathologic cancer diagnoses. Moreover, we found our claims algorithm highly specific compared to a validated algorithm identifying pathologically proven keratinocyte cancer diagnoses, and melanoma diagnoses in the Ontario cancer registry. Our data on comorbidity was limited to an administrative data algorithm without chart data abstraction, and CIHI data defining comorbidity was incomplete, notably for the last two and a half weeks of our study period. Given the use of a five-year lookback for comorbid diagnoses in CIHI, the impact on overall findings is expected to be small. Our results could under-estimate the magnitude of delayed cancer diagnosis as shown by the moderate sensitivity of our approach for KC and low sensitivity for melanoma. Melanoma may be more difficult to correctly identify clinically, especially for generalists. Moreover, some melanoma claims are for recurrences, or in-situ melanoma that is not captured in OCR.

Conclusion

A drastic reduction in number of skin biopsies is noted early in the COVID-19 pandemic; this disproportionately affected females, the elderly and residents of certain regions. A large backlog of skin biopsies was observed during the pandemic, persisting well after initial lockdown measures were instated. This will have implications for downstream care of skin cancer. We recommend that public health messages encourage individuals with suspicious skin lesions to seek evaluation in a timely fashion, and that this is welcome and encouraged. Groups at greater risk of delay should receive special attention. Moreover, health systems should increase the priority of unbiopsied skin lesions, and ensure sufficient resources for management of the expected backlog in cases.

Flow diagram for selection of study cohort of skin biopsy claims from January 7, 2019 to April 21, 2019.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Patient characteristics for skin biopsy claims associated with a diagnosis of keratinocyte carcinoma for the first 15 weeks (starting on Monday) of 2019 and 2020.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Relative risks for comparing skin biopsy claims associated with a diagnosis of keratinocyte carcinoma between COVID-19 (Weeks 11–15) and pre-COVID-19 (Weeks 1–10) periods for first 15 weeks (starting on Monday) of 2020.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Patient characteristics for skin biopsy claims associated with a diagnosis of melanoma for the first 15 weeks (starting on Monday) of 2019 and 2020.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Relative risks for comparing skin biopsy claims associated with a diagnosis of melanoma between COVID-19 (Weeks 11–15) and pre-COVID-19 (Weeks 1–10) periods for first 15 weeks (starting on Monday) of 2020.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

5 Feb 2021

PONE-D-20-37376

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on skin cancer diagnosis: a population-based study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hanna

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Even if both reviewers found the manuscript interesting, some additional evaluation and comments on the obtained data would be useful to improve the manuscript's relevance.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 22 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mauro Picardo, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please note that PLOS journals require authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction at the time of publication. When specific legal or ethical requirements prohibit public sharing of a dataset, authors must indicate how researchers may obtain access to the data. PLOS journals will not consider manuscripts for which the following factors influence ability to share data:

- Authors will not share data because of personal interests, such as patents or potential future publications.

- The conclusions depend solely on the analysis of proprietary data, whether these data are owned by the authors, by their funders or institutions, or by other parties.

Therefore, please update your Data Availability statement to indicate how other researchers may gain access to the underlying data reported in the manuscript.

For more information, please see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability

3. In your ethics statement in the manuscript and in the online submission form, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data/samples were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent.

If patients provided informed written consent to have data/samples from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

4. In the ethics statement in the manuscript and in the online submission form, please provide additional information about the patient records/samples used in your retrospective study, including the date range (month and year) during which patients' medical records/samples were accessed.

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

'I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: According to ICMJE criteria, TPH declares unrestricted research funding for an unrelated project on precision medicine from Roche. YA reports unrelated research grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Canadian Dermatology Foundation, AllerGen NCE, Sanofi Canada, Pfizer, Abbvie, and Novartis and honoraria from Janssen, Leo Pharma, Abbvie, Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Novartis.'

a. Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these.

Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

b. Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Very well written article. It is highlighting a major health concern we have encountered during the current pandemic. Hence I think the topic is very relevant. I think similar studies if undertaken in other countries would show the same decline during the cOVID-19 pandemic. Hence I think its results can be generalized to other countries and populations. Authors have used technically sound data analysis and interpretation.

Reviewer #2: This study presents an interesting observation concerning a drop in skin biopsy for cancer during the COVID pandemic. These results are largely expected based on restrictions on access to heath care during the acute phase of the pandemic. It is not surprising that the drop affected older people more than younger ones, but it is less clearly interpretable why it affected women more than men. How the delay translated into more advanced cancer stage, deaths or complications due to cancer was not explored. This is a major limitation of the study. In addition, no information was provided about what happened in the period of time subsequent to the pandemic more acute phase (namely, after May 2020): was an increase in the number of skin biopsies observed compared to the expected numbers to compensate for the reduction of interventions during the acute phase? what was the profile of patients treated thereafter?

In my opinion, in a highly dynamic situation such as the pandemic, a more comprehensive view on trends and attitudes should be obtained to better understand how healthcare changes affect outcomes

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Priyanka Bhandari

Reviewer #2: Yes: Luigi Naldi

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

24 Feb 2021

Thank-you to the Editor and Reviewers for their evaluation and comments on our article. We have uploaded a file with our responses to the Editor and Reviewers.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers FINAL.docx

Click here for additional data file.

1 Mar 2021

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on skin cancer diagnosis: a population-based study

PONE-D-20-37376R1

Dear Dr. Hanna

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Mauro Picardo, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

19 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-37376R1

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on skin cancer diagnosis: a population-based study

Dear Dr. Hanna:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Mauro Picardo

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE