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

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

Recommendations for a step-wise comparative approach to the evaluation of new screening tests for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND: New screening tests for colorectal cancer continue to emerge, but the evidence needed to justify their adoption in screening programs remains uncertain.METHODS: A review of the literature and a consensus approach by experts was undertaken to provide practical guidance on how to compare new screening tests with proven screening tests.RESULTS: Findings and recommendations from the review included the following: Adoption of a new screening test requires evidence of effectiveness relative to a proven comparator test. Clinical accuracy supported by programmatic population evaluation in the screening context on an intention-to-screen basis, including acceptability, is essential. Cancer-specific mortality is not essential as an endpoint provided that the mortality benefit of the comparator has been demonstrated and that the biologic basis of detection is similar. Effectiveness of the guaiac-based fecal occult blood test provides the minimum standard to be achieved by a new test. A 4-phase evaluation is recommended. An initial retrospective evaluation in cancer cases and controls (Phase 1) is followed by a prospective evaluation of performance across the continuum of neoplastic lesions (Phase 2). Phase 3 follows the demonstration of adequate accuracy in these 2 prescreening phases and addresses programmatic outcomes at 1 screening round on an intention-to-screen basis. Phase 4 involves more comprehensive evaluation of ongoing screening over multiple rounds. Key information is provided from the following parameters: the test positivity rate in a screening population, the true-positive and false-positive rates, and the number needed to colonoscope to detect a target lesion.CONCLUSIONS: New screening tests can be evaluated efficiently by this stepwise comparative approach. Cancer 2016;122:826-39. © 2016 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society.</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

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

Development of a synoptic MRI report for primary rectal cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Although magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an important imaging modality for pre-operative staging and surgical planning of rectal cancer, to date there has been little investigation on the completeness and overall quality of MRI reports. This is important because optimal patient care depends on the quality of the MRI report and clear communication of these reports to treating physicians. Previous work has shown that the use of synoptic pathology reports improves the quality of pathology reports and communication between physicians.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The aims of this project are to develop a synoptic MRI report for rectal cancer and determine the enablers and barriers toward the implementation of a synoptic MRI report for rectal cancer in the clinical setting. A three-step Delphi process with an expert panel will extract the key criteria for the MRI report to guide pre-operative chemoradiation and surgical planning following a review of the literature, and a synoptic template will be developed. Furthermore, standardized qualitative research methods will be used to conduct interviews with radiologists to determine the enablers and barriers to the implementation and sustainability of the synoptic MRI report in the clinic setting.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Synoptic MRI reports for rectal cancer are currently not used in North America and may improve the overall quality of MRI report and communication between physicians. This may, in turn, lead to improved patient care and outcomes for rectal cancer patients.</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