Review
. 2024 Feb 8;4(3):484-494. doi: 10.1016/j.fmre.2023.12.016. eCollection 2024 May. Noteworthy impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on cancer screening: A systematic review Min Yang 2 , Wei Xiong 3 , Quan Wang 4 , Bobo Zheng 5 , Yang Bai 6 , Kaiyong Zou 1 , Jibin Li 1 , Jiansong Ren 1 , Wanqing Chen 1 , Jingbo Zhai 7 , Jiang Li 1Affiliations
AffiliationsItem in Clipboard
Review
Noteworthy impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on cancer screening: A systematic reviewHuilin Wang et al. Fundam Res. 2024.
. 2024 Feb 8;4(3):484-494. doi: 10.1016/j.fmre.2023.12.016. eCollection 2024 May. Authors Huilin Wang 1 , Min Yang 2 , Wei Xiong 3 , Quan Wang 4 , Bobo Zheng 5 , Yang Bai 6 , Kaiyong Zou 1 , Jibin Li 1 , Jiansong Ren 1 , Wanqing Chen 1 , Jingbo Zhai 7 , Jiang Li 1 AffiliationsItem in Clipboard
AbstractThe sudden onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in January 2020 has affected essential global health services. Cancer-screening services that can reduce cancer mortality are strongly affected. However, the specific role of COVID-19 in cancer screening is not fully understood. This study aimed to assess the efficiency of global cancer screening programs before and during the COVID-19 pandemic and to promote potential cancer-screening strategies for the next pandemic. Electronic searches in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, and manual searches were performed between January 1, 2020 and March 1, 2023. Cohort studies that reported the number of participants who underwent cancer screening before and during the COVID-19 pandemic were included. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Differences in cancer-screening rates were estimated using the incidence rate ratio (IRR). Fifty-five cohort studies were included in this meta-analysis. The screening rates of colorectal cancer using invasive screening methods (Pooled IRR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.65, p < 0.01), cervical cancer (Pooled IRR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.67, p < 0.01), breast cancer (Pooled IRR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.66, p < 0.01) and prostate cancer (Pooled IRR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.90, p < 0.01) during the COVID-19 pandemic were significantly lower than those before the COVID-19 pandemic. The screening rates of lung cancer (Pooled IRR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.03, p = 0.08) and colorectal cancer using noninvasive screening methods (Pooled IRR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.09, p = 0.13) were reduced with no statistical differences. The subgroup analyses revealed that the reduction in cancer-screening rates varied across economies. Our results suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a noteworthy impact on colorectal, cervical, breast, and prostate cancer screening. Developing innovative cancer-screening technologies is important to promote the efficiency of cancer-screening services in the post-COVID-19 era and prepare for the next pandemic.
Keywords: COVID-19 pandemic; Cancer screening; Cohort study; Incidence rate ratio; Meta-analysis.
© 2024 The Authors. Publishing Services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co. Ltd.
Conflict of interest statementThe authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest in this work.
FiguresFig. 1
PRISMA flow diagram of screening…
Fig. 1
PRISMA flow diagram of screening studies .
Fig. 1PRISMA flow diagram of screening studies.
Fig. 2
Forest plot of the pooled…
Fig. 2
Forest plot of the pooled incidence rate ratio on colorectal cancer screening via…
Fig. 2Forest plot of the pooled incidence rate ratio on colorectal cancer screening via noninvasive screening methods.
Fig. 3
Forest plot of the pooled…
Fig. 3
Forest plot of the pooled incidence rate ratio on colorectal cancer screening via…
Fig. 3Forest plot of the pooled incidence rate ratio on colorectal cancer screening via invasive screening methods.
Fig. 4
Forest plot of the pooled…
Fig. 4
Forest plot of the pooled incidence rate ratio on cervical cancer screening .
Fig. 4Forest plot of the pooled incidence rate ratio on cervical cancer screening.
Fig. 5
Forest plot of the pooled…
Fig. 5
Forest plot of the pooled incidence rate ratio on breast cancer screening .
Fig. 5Forest plot of the pooled incidence rate ratio on breast cancer screening.
Fig. 6
Forest plot of the pooled…
Fig. 6
Forest plot of the pooled incidence rate ratio on prostate cancer screening .
Fig. 6Forest plot of the pooled incidence rate ratio on prostate cancer screening.
Fig. 7
Forest plot of the pooled…
Fig. 7
Forest plot of the pooled incidence rate ratio on lung cancer screening .
Fig. 7Forest plot of the pooled incidence rate ratio on lung cancer screening.
Fig. 8
Subgroup analysis of cervical cancer…
Fig. 8
Subgroup analysis of cervical cancer screening rate based on different economies .
Fig. 8Subgroup analysis of cervical cancer screening rate based on different economies.
Fig. 9
Subgroup analysis of breast cancer…
Fig. 9
Subgroup analysis of breast cancer screening rate based on different economies .
Fig. 9Subgroup analysis of breast cancer screening rate based on different economies.
Fig. 10
Subgroup analysis of prostate cancer…
Fig. 10
Subgroup analysis of prostate cancer screening rate based on different economies .
Fig. 10Subgroup analysis of prostate cancer screening rate based on different economies.
Similar articlesBarclay NL, Pineda Moncusí M, Jödicke AM, Prieto-Alhambra D, Raventós B, Newby D, Delmestri A, Man WY, Chen X, Català M. Barclay NL, et al. Front Oncol. 2024 Mar 27;14:1370862. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1370862. eCollection 2024. Front Oncol. 2024. PMID: 38601756 Free PMC article.
Mayo M, Potugari B, Bzeih R, Scheidel C, Carrera C, Shellenberger RA. Mayo M, et al. Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2021 Dec;5(6):1109-1117. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2021.10.003. Epub 2021 Oct 18. Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2021. PMID: 34693211 Free PMC article. Review.
Crider K, Williams J, Qi YP, Gutman J, Yeung L, Mai C, Finkelstain J, Mehta S, Pons-Duran C, Menéndez C, Moraleda C, Rogers L, Daniels K, Green P. Crider K, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022. PMID: 36321557 Free PMC article.
D'Souza D, Empringham J, Pechlivanoglou P, Uleryk EM, Cohen E, Shulman R. D'Souza D, et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Jun 1;6(6):e2321281. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.21281. JAMA Netw Open. 2023. PMID: 37389869 Free PMC article.
Ilic D, Neuberger MM, Djulbegovic M, Dahm P. Ilic D, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jan 31;2013(1):CD004720. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004720.pub3. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013. PMID: 23440794 Free PMC article. Review.
Xie S, Zhu Y. Xie S, et al. Fundam Res. 2024 Mar 14;4(3):415-416. doi: 10.1016/j.fmre.2024.03.002. eCollection 2024 May. Fundam Res. 2024. PMID: 38933209 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
Garip H, Baskonus I, Aytekin A, Yilmaz L, Bulut A, Gumus M. Garip H, et al. Ir J Med Sci. 2025 Feb;194(1):37-44. doi: 10.1007/s11845-024-03860-w. Epub 2025 Jan 4. Ir J Med Sci. 2025. PMID: 39754685
Chino Y, Onuma T, Ito T, Shinagawa A, Kurokawa T, Orisaka M, Yoshida Y. Chino Y, et al. Healthcare (Basel). 2024 Oct 30;12(21):2160. doi: 10.3390/healthcare12212160. Healthcare (Basel). 2024. PMID: 39517372 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