Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35307815/ below:

A national quality improvement study identifying and addressing cancer screening deficits due to the COVID-19 pandemic

Affiliations

• 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.

• PMID: 35307815
• PMCID: PMC9086125
• DOI: 10.1002/cncr.34157

Item in Clipboard

Rachel H Joung et al. Cancer. 2022.

• 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.

• PMID: 35307815
• PMCID: PMC9086125
• DOI: 10.1002/cncr.34157

Item in Clipboard

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.

© 2022 American Cancer Society.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of Interest Disclosures : Sarah Shafir and William G. Cance are employed by the American Cancer Society, which receives grants from private and corporate foundations, including foundations associated with companies in the health sector, for research outside the submitted work. Sarah Shafir serves as the principal investigator for two cooperative agreements between the American Cancer Society and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—the Provision of Technical Assistance and Training Activities to Assure Comprehensive Cancer Control Outcomes and the Strengthening Public Health Systems and Services through National Partnerships to Improve and Protect the Nation’s Health. The remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Relative percent change in MTV across various geographic regions. Negative indicates screening deficit, positive indicates screening excess. Boxes encompass the 25–75^th percentile. Whiskers are ± 1.5 IQR. No statistically significant differences between facility locations were identified for any of the four disease sites (a) Breast, (b) Colorectal, (c) Lung, (d) Cervical

Relative percent change in MTV across various geographic regions. Negative indicates screening deficit, positive indicates screening excess. Boxes encompass the 25–75^th percentile. Whiskers are ± 1.5 IQR. No statistically significant differences between facility locations were identified for any of the four disease sites (a) Breast, (b) Colorectal, (c) Lung, (d) Cervical

Relative percent change in MTV across various geographic regions. Negative indicates screening deficit, positive indicates screening excess. Boxes encompass the 25–75^th percentile. Whiskers are ± 1.5 IQR. No statistically significant differences between facility locations were identified for any of the four disease sites (a) Breast, (b) Colorectal, (c) Lung, (d) Cervical

Relative percent change in MTV across various geographic regions. Negative indicates screening deficit, positive indicates screening excess. Boxes encompass the 25–75^th percentile. Whiskers are ± 1.5 IQR. No statistically significant differences between facility locations were identified for any of the four disease sites (a) Breast, (b) Colorectal, (c) Lung, (d) Cervical

Relative percent change in MTV across types of institutions (calculated as described in Figure1). Boxes encompass the 25–75^th percentile. Whiskers are ± 1.5 IQR. Statistically significant difference in the percent change in colorectal cancer screening tests between integrated network programs (median, −8.2%; IQR, −19.8% to −2.3%) compared to other programs (median, −43.8%; IQR, −51.3% to −10.0%), p=.02. (a) Breast, (b) Colorectal, (c) Lung, (d) Cervical

Relative percent change in MTV across types of institutions (calculated as described in Figure1). Boxes encompass the 25–75^th percentile. Whiskers are ± 1.5 IQR. Statistically significant difference in the percent change in colorectal cancer screening tests between integrated network programs (median, −8.2%; IQR, −19.8% to −2.3%) compared to other programs (median, −43.8%; IQR, −51.3% to −10.0%), p=.02. (a) Breast, (b) Colorectal, (c) Lung, (d) Cervical

Relative percent change in MTV across types of institutions (calculated as described in Figure1). Boxes encompass the 25–75^th percentile. Whiskers are ± 1.5 IQR. Statistically significant difference in the percent change in colorectal cancer screening tests between integrated network programs (median, −8.2%; IQR, −19.8% to −2.3%) compared to other programs (median, −43.8%; IQR, −51.3% to −10.0%), p=.02. (a) Breast, (b) Colorectal, (c) Lung, (d) Cervical

Relative percent change in MTV across types of institutions (calculated as described in Figure1). Boxes encompass the 25–75^th percentile. Whiskers are ± 1.5 IQR. Statistically significant difference in the percent change in colorectal cancer screening tests between integrated network programs (median, −8.2%; IQR, −19.8% to −2.3%) compared to other programs (median, −43.8%; IQR, −51.3% to −10.0%), p=.02. (a) Breast, (b) Colorectal, (c) Lung, (d) Cervical

• Evaluation of a National Quality Improvement Collaborative for Improving Cancer Screening.

  Joung RH, Mullett TW, Kurtzman SH, Shafir S, Harris JB, Yao KA, Bilimoria KY, Cance WG, Nelson H; Return-to-Screening Quality Improvement Collaborative. Joung RH, et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Nov 1;5(11):e2242354. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.42354. JAMA Netw Open. 2022. PMID: 36383381 Free PMC article.

• The impact of COVID-19 on screening for colorectal, gastric, breast, and cervical cancer in Korea.

  Park H, Seo SH, Park JH, Yoo SH, Keam B, Shin A. Park H, et al. Epidemiol Health. 2022;44:e2022053. doi: 10.4178/epih.e2022053. Epub 2022 Jun 21. Epidemiol Health. 2022. PMID: 35760396 Free PMC article.

• Japanese cancer screening programs during the COVID-19 pandemic: Changes in participation between 2017-2020.

  Machii R, Takahashi H. Machii R, et al. Cancer Epidemiol. 2023 Feb;82:102313. doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2022.102313. Epub 2022 Dec 7. Cancer Epidemiol. 2023. PMID: 36508964 Free PMC article.

• Screening for cancer in low- and middle-income countries.

  Sankaranarayanan R. Sankaranarayanan R. Ann Glob Health. 2014 Sep-Oct;80(5):412-7. doi: 10.1016/j.aogh.2014.09.014. Ann Glob Health. 2014. PMID: 25512156 Review.

• A systematic review of special events to promote breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening in the United States.

  Escoffery C, Rodgers KC, Kegler MC, Haardörfer R, Howard DH, Liang S, Pinsker E, Roland KB, Allen JD, Ory MG, Bastani R, Fernandez ME, Risendal BC, Byrd TL, Coronado GD. Escoffery C, et al. BMC Public Health. 2014 Mar 24;14:274. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-274. BMC Public Health. 2014. PMID: 24661503 Free PMC article. Review.

• Evaluating the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Monthly Trends in Primary Care.

  Varandani S, Nagib ND. Varandani S, et al. Cureus. 2022 Aug 24;14(8):e28353. doi: 10.7759/cureus.28353. eCollection 2022 Aug. Cureus. 2022. PMID: 36168368 Free PMC article.

• Perspectives and Challenges of COVID-19 with Obesity-Related Cancers.

  Dalamaga M, Nasiri-Ansari N, Spyrou N. Dalamaga M, et al. Cancers (Basel). 2023 Mar 15;15(6):1771. doi: 10.3390/cancers15061771. Cancers (Basel). 2023. PMID: 36980657 Free PMC article.

• Long-term effects of the interruption of the Dutch breast cancer screening program due to COVID-19: A modelling study.

  Poelhekken K, Greuter MJW, de Munck L, Siesling S, Brokken FB, de Bock GH. Poelhekken K, et al. Prev Med. 2023 Jan;166:107376. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107376. Epub 2022 Dec 6. Prev Med. 2023. PMID: 36493865 Free PMC article.

• The role of facility and patient mix factors on recovery of screening and diagnostic mammography volumes following the initial COVID-19 pandemic wave.

  Lomahan S, Rauscher GH, Murphy AM. Lomahan S, et al. Cancer Med. 2023 May;12(9):10877-10888. doi: 10.1002/cam4.5793. Epub 2023 Mar 16. Cancer Med. 2023. PMID: 36924321 Free PMC article.

• Patient-Reported Experiences of Breast Cancer Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment Delay, and Telemedicine Adoption during COVID-19.

  Du S, Carfang L, Restrepo E, Benjamin C, Epstein MM, Fairley R, Roudebush L, Hertz C, Eshraghi L, Warner ET. Du S, et al. Curr Oncol. 2022 Aug 20;29(8):5919-5932. doi: 10.3390/curroncol29080467. Curr Oncol. 2022. PMID: 36005205 Free PMC article.

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.3