Interruption of cancer screening services due to COVID-19 pandemic: lessons from previous disasters

Purpose: To review the scientific literature seeking lessons for the COVID-19 era that could be learned from previous health services interruptions that affected the delivery of cancer screening services. Methods: A systematic search was conducted up to April 17, 2020, with no restrictions on language or dates and resulted in 385 articles. Two researchers independently assessed the list and discussed any disagreements. Once a consensus was achieved for each paper, those selected were included in the review. Results: Eleven articles were included. Three studies were based in Japan, two in the United States, one in South Korea, one in Denmark, and the remaining four offered a global perspective on interruptions in health services due to natural or human-caused disasters. No articles covered an interruption due to a pandemic. The main themes identified in the reviewed studies were coordination, communication, resource availability and patient follow-up. Conclusion: Lessons learned applied to the context of COVID-19 are that coordination involving partners across the health sector is essential to optimize resources and resume services, making them more resilient while preparing for future interruptions. Communication with the general population about how COVID-19 has affected cancer screening, measures taken to mitigate it and safely re-establish screening services is recommended. Use of mobile health systems to reach patients who are not accessing services and the application of resource-stratified guidelines are important considerations. More research is needed to explore best strategies for suspending, resuming and sustaining cancer screening programs, and preparedness for future disruptions, adapted to diverse health care systems

Unusual primary HIV infection with colonic ulcer complicated by hemorrhagic shock: a case report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>Timely diagnosis of primary HIV infection is important to prevent further transmission of HIV. Primary HIV infection may take place without symptoms or may be associated with fever, pharyngitis or headache. Sometimes, the clinical presentation includes aseptic meningitis or cutaneous lesions. Intestinal ulceration due to opportunistic pathogens (cytomegalovirus, Epstein-Barr virus, <it>Toxoplasma gondii</it>) has been described in patients with AIDS. However, although invasion of intestinal lymphoid tissue is a prominent feature of human and simian lentivirus infections, colonic ulceration has not been reported in acute HIV infection.</p> <p>Case description</p> <p>A 42-year-old Caucasian man was treated with amoxicillin-clavulanate for pharyngitis. He did not improve, and a rash developed. History taking revealed a negative HIV antibody test five months previously and unprotected sex with a male partner the month before admission. Repeated tests revealed primary HIV infection with an exceptionally high HIV-1 RNA plasma concentration (3.6 × 10⁷copies/mL) and a low CD4 count (101 cells/mm³, seven percent of total lymphocytes). While being investigated, the patient had a life-threatening hematochezia. After angiographic occlusion of a branch of the ileocaecal artery and initiation of antiretroviral therapy, the patient became rapidly asymptomatic and could be discharged. Colonoscopy revealed a bleeding colonic ulcer. We were unable to identify an etiology other than HIV for this ulcer.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This case adds to the known protean manifestation of primary HIV infection. The lack of an alternative etiology, despite extensive investigations, suggests that this ulcer was directly caused by primary HIV infection. This conclusion is supported by the well-described extensive loss of intestinal mucosal CD4⁺T cells associated with primary HIV infection, the extremely high HIV viral load observed in our patient, and the rapid improvement of the ulcer after initiation of highly active antiretroviral therapy. This case also adds to the debate on treatment for primary HIV infection, especially in the context of severe symptoms and an extremely high viral load.</p

Building on existing tools to improve chronic disease prevention and screening in public health : a cluster randomized trial

This study was funded as a grant proposal entitled ‘Advancing Cancer Prevention Among Deprived Neighbourhoods’ by the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute grant #704042 and by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research Institute of Cancer grant OCP #145450. AL is supported by a CIHR New Investigator Award, and as Chair in Implementation Science at the Peter Gilgan Centre for Women’s Cancers at Women’s College Hospital in partnership with the Canadian Cancer Society.Background The BETTER (Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care) intervention was designed to integrate the approach to chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care and demonstrated effective in a previous randomized trial. Methods We tested the effectiveness of the BETTER HEALTH intervention, a public health adaptation of BETTER, at improving participation in chronic disease prevention and screening actions for residents of low-income neighbourhoods in a cluster randomized trial, with ten low-income neighbourhoods in Durham Region Ontario randomized to immediate intervention vs. wait-list. The unit of analysis was the individual, and eligible participants were adults age 40–64 years residing in the neighbourhoods. Public health nurses trained as “prevention practitioners” held one prevention-focused visit with each participant. They provided participants with a tailored prevention prescription and supported them to set health-related goals. The primary outcome was a composite index: the number of evidence-based actions achieved at six months as a proportion of those for which participants were eligible at baseline. Results Of 126 participants (60 in immediate arm; 66 in wait-list arm), 125 were included in analyses (1 participant withdrew consent). In both arms, participants were eligible for a mean of 8.6 actions at baseline. At follow-up, participants in the immediate intervention arm met 64.5% of actions for which they were eligible versus 42.1% in the wait-list arm (rate ratio 1.53 [95% confidence interval 1.22–1.84]). Conclusion Public health nurses using the BETTER HEALTH intervention led to a higher proportion of identified evidence-based prevention and screening actions achieved at six months for people living with socioeconomic disadvantage.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Emergency percutaneous needle decompression for tension pneumoperitoneum

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Tension pneumoperitoneum as a complication of iatrogenic bowel perforation during endoscopy is a dramatic condition in which intraperitoneal air under pressure causes hemodynamic and ventilatory compromise. Like tension pneumothorax, urgent intervention is required. Immediate surgical decompression though is not always possible due to the limitations of the preclinical management and sometimes to capacity constraints of medical staff and equipment in the clinic.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This is a retrospective analysis of cases of pneumoperitoneum and tension pneumoperitoneum due to iatrogenic bowel perforation. All patients admitted to our surgical department between January 2005 and October 2010 were included. Tension pneumoperitoneum was diagnosed in those patients presenting signs of hemodynamic and ventilatory compromise in addition to abdominal distension.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Between January 2005 and October 2010 eleven patients with iatrogenic bowel perforation were admitted to our surgical department. The mean time between perforation and admission was 36 ± 14 hrs (range 30 min - 130 hrs), between ER admission and begin of the operation 3 hrs and 15 min ± 47 min (range 60 min - 9 hrs). Three out of eleven patients had clinical signs of tension pneumoperitoneum. In those patients emergency percutaneous needle decompression was performed with a 16G venous catheter. This improved significantly the patients' condition (stabilization of vital signs, reducing jugular vein congestion), bridging the time to the start of the operation.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Hemodynamical and respiratory compromise in addition to abdominal distension shortly after endoscopy are strongly suggestive of tension pneumoperitoneum due to iatrogenic bowel perforation. This is a rare but life threatening condition and it can be managed in a preclinical and clinical setting with emergency percutaneous needle decompression like tension pneumothorax. Emergency percutaneous decompression is no definitive treatment, only a method to bridge the time gap to definitive surgical repair.</p

What are the risk factors of colonoscopic perforation?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Knowledge of the factors influencing colonoscopic perforation (CP) is of decisive importance, especially with regard to the avoidance or minimization of the perforations. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence and risk factors of CP in one of the endoscopic training centers accredited by the World Gastroenterology Organization.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The prospectively collected data were reviewed of all patients undergoing either colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy at the Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand between January 2005 and July 2008. The incidence of CP was evaluated. Eight independent patient-, endoscopist- and endoscopy-related variables were analyzed by a multivariate model to determine their association with CP.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Over a 3.5-year period, 10,124 endoscopic procedures of the colon (8,987 colonoscopies and 1,137 flexible sigmoidoscopies) were performed. There were 15 colonic perforations (0.15%). Colonoscopy had a slightly higher risk of CP than flexible sigmoidoscopy (OR 1.77, 95%CI 0.23-13.51; p = 1.0). Patient gender, emergency endoscopy, anesthetic method, and the specialty or experience of the endoscopist were not significantly predictive of CP rate. In multivariate analysis, patient age of over 75 years (OR = 6.24, 95%CI 2.26-17.26; p < 0.001) and therapeutic endoscopy (OR = 2.98, 95%CI 1.08-8.23; p = 0.036) were the only two independent risk factors for CP.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The incidence of CP in this study was 0.15%. Patient age of over 75 years and therapeutic colonoscopy were two important risk factors for CP.</p

Socioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival in England after the NHS cancer plan

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic inequalities in survival were observed for many cancers in England during 1981-1999. The NHS Cancer Plan (2000) aimed to improve survival and reduce these inequalities. This study examines trends in the deprivation gap in cancer survival after implementation of the Plan. MATERIALS AND METHOD: We examined relative survival among adults diagnosed with 1 of 21 common cancers in England during 1996-2006, followed up to 31 December 2007. Three periods were defined: 1996-2000 (before the Cancer Plan), 2001-2003 (initialisation) and 2004-2006 (implementation). We estimated the difference in survival between the most deprived and most affluent groups (deprivation gap) at 1 and 3 years after diagnosis, and the change in the deprivation gap both within and between these periods. RESULTS: Survival improved for most cancers, but inequalities in survival were still wide for many cancers in 2006. Only the deprivation gap in 1-year survival narrowed slightly over time. A majority of the socioeconomic disparities in survival occurred soon after a cancer diagnosis, regardless of the cancer prognosis. CONCLUSION: The recently observed reduction in the deprivation gap was minor and limited to 1-year survival, suggesting that, so far, the Cancer Plan has little effect on those inequalities. Our findings highlight that earlier diagnosis and rapid access to optimal treatment should be ensured for all socioeconomic groups

Gender differences in predictors of colorectal cancer screening uptake: A national cross sectional study based on the health belief model

10.1186/1471-2458-13-677BMC Public Health131