The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer diagnosis based on pathology notifications : A comparison across the Nordic countries during 2020

The severity of the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent mitigation strategies have varied across the Nordic countries. In a joint Nordic population-based effort, we compared patterns of new cancer cases and notifications between the Nordic countries during 2020. We used pathology notifications to cancer registries in Denmark, the Faroe Islands, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden to determine monthly numbers of pathology notifications of malignant and in situ tumours from January to December 2020 compared to 2019 (2017-2019 for Iceland and the Faroe Islands). We compared new cancer cases per month based on unique individuals with pathology notifications. In April and May 2020, the numbers of new malignant cases declined in all Nordic countries, except the Faroe Islands, compared to previous year(s). The largest reduction was observed in Sweden (May: -31.2%, 95% CI -33.9, -28.3), followed by significant declines in Finland, Denmark and Norway, and a nonsignificant decline in Iceland. In Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland the reporting rates during the second half of 2020 rose to almost the same level as in 2019. However, in Sweden and Finland, the increase did not compensate for the spring decline (annual reduction -6.2% and -3.6%, respectively). Overall, similar patterns were observed for in situ tumours. The COVID-19 pandemic led to a decline in rates of new cancer cases in Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Norway, with the most pronounced reduction in Sweden. Possible explanations include the severity of the pandemic, temporary halting of screening activities and changes in healthcare seeking behaviour.Peer reviewe

Non-parametric estimation of reference adjusted, standardised probabilities of all-cause death and death due to cancer for population group comparisons

Abstract Background Ensuring fair comparisons of cancer survival statistics across population groups requires careful consideration of differential competing mortality due to other causes, and adjusting for imbalances over groups in other prognostic covariates (e.g. age). This has typically been achieved using comparisons of age-standardised net survival, with age standardisation addressing covariate imbalance, and the net estimates removing differences in competing mortality from other causes. However, these estimates lack ease of interpretability. In this paper, we motivate an alternative non-parametric approach that uses a common rate of other cause mortality across groups to give reference-adjusted estimates of the all-cause and cause-specific crude probability of death in contrast to solely reporting net survival estimates. Methods We develop the methodology for a non-parametric equivalent of standardised and reference adjusted crude probabilities of death, building on the estimation of non-parametric crude probabilities of death. We illustrate the approach using regional comparisons of survival following a diagnosis of rectal cancer for men in England. We standardise to the covariate distribution and other cause mortality of England as a whole to offer comparability, but with close approximation to the observed all-cause region-specific mortality. Results The approach gives comparable estimates to observed crude probabilities of death, but allows direct comparison across population groups with different covariate profiles and competing mortality patterns. In our illustrative example, we show that regional variations in survival following a diagnosis of rectal cancer persist even after accounting for the variation in deprivation, age at diagnosis and other cause mortality. Conclusions The methodological approach of using standardised and reference adjusted metrics offers an appealing approach for future cancer survival comparison studies and routinely published cancer statistics. Our non-parametric estimation approach through the use of weighting offers the ability to estimate comparable survival estimates without the need for statistical modelling

Were cancer patients worse off than the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic? : A population-based study from Norway, Denmark and Iceland during the pre-vaccination era

Background In a population-based setting, we investigated the risks of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and developing severe COVID-19 outcomes among cancer patients compared with the general population.Methods In nationwide cohorts, we identified all individuals in Norway, Denmark and Iceland who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 or had a severe COVID-19 outcome (hospitalisation, intensive care, and death) from March until December 2020, using data from national health registries. We estimated standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) comparing cancer patients with the general population.Findings During the first wave of the pandemic, cancer patients in Norway and Denmark had higher risks of testing SARS-CoV-2 positive compared to the general population. Throughout 2020, recently treated cancer patients were more likely to test SARS-CoV-2 positive. In Iceland, cancer patients experienced no increased risk of testing positive. The risk of COVID-19-related hospitalisation was higher among cancer patients diagnosed within one year of hospitalisation (Norway: SIR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.89-3.09; Denmark: 2.23, 1.96-2.54) and within five years (Norway: 1.58, 1.35-1.83; Denmark: 1.54, 1.42-1.66). Risks were higher in recently treated cancer patients and in those diagnosed with haematologic malignancies, colorectal or lung cancer. Risks of COVID-19-related intensive care and death were higher among cancer patients. Interpretation Cancer patients were at increased risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the first pandemic wave when testing availability was limited, while relative risks of severe COVID-19 outcomes remained increased in cancer patients throughout 2020. Recent cancer treatment and haematologic malignancy were the strongest risk factors