Rachel H Joung1, Heidi Nelson2, Timothy W Mullett2,3, Scott H Kurtzman4,5, Sarah Shafir6, James B Harris2,7, Katharine A Yao4,8, Brian C Brajcich1, Karl Y Bilimoria1, William G Cance6. 1. Department of Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. 2. Cancer Programs, American College of Surgeons, Chicago, Illinois. 3. Markey Cancer Center, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky. 4. National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers, Chicago, Illinois. 5. Department of Surgery, Waterbury Hospital, Waterbury, Connecticut. 6. American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia. 7. Department of Surgery, University of Nevada Reno School of Medicine, Reno, Nevada. 8. NorthShore University Health System, Evanston, Illinois.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer-related deaths over the next decade are expected to increase due to cancer screening deficits associated with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Although national deficits have been quantified, a structured response to identifying and addressing local deficits has not been widely available. The objectives of this report are to share preliminary data on monthly screening deficits in breast, colorectal, lung, and cervical cancers across diverse settings and to provide online materials from a national quality improvement (QI) study to help other institutions to address local screening deficits. METHODS: This prospective, national QI study on Return-to-Screening enrolled 748 accredited cancer programs in the United States from April through June 2021. Local prepandemic and pandemic monthly screening test volumes (MTVs) were used to calculate the relative percent change in MTV to describe the monthly screening gap. RESULTS: The majority of facilities reported monthly screening deficits (colorectal cancer, 80.6% [n = 104/129]; cervical cancer, 69.0% [n = 20/29]; breast cancer, 55.3% [n = 241/436]; lung cancer, 44.6% [n = 98/220]). Overall, the median relative percent change in MTV ranged from -17.7% for colorectal cancer (interquartile range [IQR], -33.6% to -2.8%), -6.8% for cervical cancer (IQR, -29.4% to 1.7%), -1.6% for breast cancer (IQR, -9.6% to 7.0%), and 1.2% for lung cancer (IQR, -16.9% to 19.0%). Geographic differences were not observed. There were statistically significant differences in the percent change in MTV between institution types for colorectal cancer screening (P = .02). CONCLUSION: Cancer screening is still in need of urgent attention, and the screening resources made available online may help facilities to close critical gaps and address screenings missed in 2020. LAY SUMMARY: Question: How can the effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on cancer screening be mitigated? FINDINGS: When national resources were provided, including methods to calculate local screening deficits, 748 cancer programs promptly enrolled in a national Return-to-Screening study, and the majority identified local screening deficits, most notably in colorectal cancer. Using these results, 814 quality improvement projects were initiated with the potential to add 70,000 screening tests in 2021. Meaning: Cancer screening is still in need of urgent attention, and the online resources that we provide may help to close critical screening deficits.
BACKGROUND: Cancer-related deaths over the next decade are expected to increase due to cancer screening deficits associated with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Although national deficits have been quantified, a structured response to identifying and addressing local deficits has not been widely available. The objectives of this report are to share preliminary data on monthly screening deficits in breast, colorectal, lung, and cervical cancers across diverse settings and to provide online materials from a national quality improvement (QI) study to help other institutions to address local screening deficits. METHODS: This prospective, national QI study on Return-to-Screening enrolled 748 accredited cancer programs in the United States from April through June 2021. Local prepandemic and pandemic monthly screening test volumes (MTVs) were used to calculate the relative percent change in MTV to describe the monthly screening gap. RESULTS: The majority of facilities reported monthly screening deficits (colorectal cancer, 80.6% [n = 104/129]; cervical cancer, 69.0% [n = 20/29]; breast cancer, 55.3% [n = 241/436]; lung cancer, 44.6% [n = 98/220]). Overall, the median relative percent change in MTV ranged from -17.7% for colorectal cancer (interquartile range [IQR], -33.6% to -2.8%), -6.8% for cervical cancer (IQR, -29.4% to 1.7%), -1.6% for breast cancer (IQR, -9.6% to 7.0%), and 1.2% for lung cancer (IQR, -16.9% to 19.0%). Geographic differences were not observed. There were statistically significant differences in the percent change in MTV between institution types for colorectal cancer screening (P = .02). CONCLUSION: Cancer screening is still in need of urgent attention, and the screening resources made available online may help facilities to close critical gaps and address screenings missed in 2020. LAY SUMMARY: Question: How can the effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on cancer screening be mitigated? FINDINGS: When national resources were provided, including methods to calculate local screening deficits, 748 cancer programs promptly enrolled in a national Return-to-Screening study, and the majority identified local screening deficits, most notably in colorectal cancer. Using these results, 814 quality improvement projects were initiated with the potential to add 70,000 screening tests in 2021. Meaning: Cancer screening is still in need of urgent attention, and the online resources that we provide may help to close critical screening deficits.
Keywords:
breast cancer screening; cancer screening and prevention; cervical cancer screening; colorectal cancer screening; coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic; lung cancer screening; quality improvement; screening deficits; screening disparities
Authors: Ma Somsouk; Carly Rachocki; Ajitha Mannalithara; Dianne Garcia; Victoria Laleau; Barbara Grimes; Rachel B Issaka; Ellen Chen; Eric Vittinghoff; Jean A Shapiro; Uri Ladabaum Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-03-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Mariam El-Zein; Sheila Bouten; Karolina Louvanto; Lucy Gilbert; Walter H Gotlieb; Robert Hemmings; Marcel A Behr; Eduardo L Franco Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2019-04-23 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Jonah Musa; Chad J Achenbach; Linda C O'Dwyer; Charlesnika T Evans; Megan McHugh; Lifang Hou; Melissa A Simon; Robert L Murphy; Neil Jordan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-09-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Simo Du; Laura Carfang; Emily Restrepo; Christine Benjamin; Mara M Epstein; Ricki Fairley; Laura Roudebush; Crystal Hertz; Leah Eshraghi; Erica T Warner Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2022-08-20 Impact factor: 3.109