The trajectory of racial/ethnic disparities in the use of cancer screening before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A large U.S. academic center analysis

Evolving trends in CT colonography: A 10-year analysis of use and associated factors

PURPOSE

Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is a non-invasive screening test for colorectal cancer (CRC) with high sensitivity and low risk of complications. We used a nationally representative sample of screening-eligible adults to examine trends in and factors associated with CTC use.

METHODS

We examined CTC use among 58,058 adults in the National Health Interview Survey in 2010, 2015, 2018, 2019, and 2021. For each survey year, we estimated CTC use by sociodemographic and health factors. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with CTC use.

RESULTS

A total of 1.7 % adults reported receiving CTC across all survey years. CTC use was similar in 2010 (1.3 %), 2015 (0.8 %), 2018 (1.4 %), and 2019 (1.4 %) but increased in 2021 (3.5 %, p < 0.05). In multivariable analysis, survey year 2021 [vs. 2010, odds ratio (OR) 2.51, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.83-3.43], Hispanic (OR 1.73, 95 % CI 1.34-2.23), non-Hispanic Black (OR 2.07, 95 % CI 1.67-2.57), and household income <200 % federal poverty level (vs. >400 %, OR 1.25, 95 % CI 1.01-1.57) was associated with CTC use. Further, adults with a history of diabetes (OR 1.20, 95 % CI 1.01-1.45), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 1.58, 95 % CI 1.25-1.99), cancer (OR 1.29, 95 % CI 1.05-1.58), or past-year hospital admissions (OR 1.44, 95 % CI 1.18-1.78) were more likely to receive CTC.

CONCLUSION

CTC use remained low from 2010 to 2019 but increased in 2021. CTC use was more frequent among adults with chronic health conditions, minorities, and adults with lower income, and may help reduce disparities in CRC screening.

Bundling Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach with Screening for Social Risk in Federally Qualified Health Centers: A Stepped-Wedge Implementation-Effectiveness Study

BACKGROUND

Bundling is combining individual interventions to meet quality metrics. Bundling offers of cancer screening with screening for social determinants of health (SDOH) may enable health centers to assist patients with social risks and yield efficiencies.

OBJECTIVE

To measure effects of bundling fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and SDOH screening in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs).

DESIGN

Clustered stepped-wedge trial.

PARTICIPANTS

Four Massachusetts FQHCs randomized to implement bundled FIT-SDOH over 8-week "steps."

INTERVENTION

Outreach to 50-75-year-olds overdue for CRC screening to offer FIT with SDOH screening. The implementation strategy used facilitation and training for data monitoring and reporting.

MAIN MEASURES

Implementation process descriptions, data from facilitation meetings, and CRC and SDOH screening rates. Rates were compared between implementation and control FQHCs in each "step" by fitting generalized linear mixed-effects models with random intercepts for FQHCs, patients, and "step" by FQHC.

KEY RESULTS

FQHCs tailored implementation processes to their infrastructure, workflows, and staffing and prioritized different groups for outreach. Two FQHCs used population health outreach, and two integrated FIT-SDOH within established programs, such as pre-visit planning. Of 34,588 patients overdue for CRC screening, 54% were female; 20% Black, 11% Latino, 10% Asian, and 47% white; 32% had Medicaid, 16% Medicare, 32% private insurance, and 11% uninsured. Odds of CRC screening completion in implementation "steps" compared to controls were higher overall and among groups prioritized for outreach (overall: adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.41, p = 0.005; prioritized: aOR 2.88, p = 0.002). Odds of SDOH screening did not differ across "steps."

CONCLUSIONS

As healthcare systems are required to conduct more screenings, it is notable that outreach for a long-standing cancer screening requirement increased screening, even when bundled with a newer screening requirement. This outreach was feasible in a real-world safety-net clinical population and may conserve resources, especially compared to more complex or intensive outreach strategies.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT04585919.

Disparities in Cancer Stage Outcomes by Catchment Areas for a Comprehensive Cancer Center

Importance

The National Cancer Institute comprehensive cancer centers (CCCs) lack spatial and temporal evaluation of their self-designated catchment areas.

Objective

To identify disparities in cancer stage at diagnosis within and outside a CCC's catchment area across a 10-year period using spatial and statistical analyses.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional, population-based study conducted between 2010 and 2019 utilized cancer registry data for the Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel CCC (SKCCC). Eligible participants included patients with cancer in the contiguous US who received treatment for cancer, a diagnosis of cancer, or both at SKCCC. Patients were geocoded to zip code tabulation areas (ZCTAs). Individual-level variables included sociodemographic characteristics, smoking and alcohol use, treatment type, cancer site, and insurance type. Data analysis was performed between March and July 2023.

Exposures

Distance between SKCCC and ZCTAs were computed to generate a catchment area of the closest 75% of patients and outer zones in 5% increments for comparison.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was cancer stage at diagnosis, defined as early-stage, late-stage, or unknown stage. Multinomial logistic regression was used to determine associations of catchment area with stage at diagnosis.

Results

This study had a total of 94 007 participants (46 009 male [48.94%] and 47 998 female [51.06%]; 30 195 aged 22-45 years [32.12%]; 4209 Asian [4.48%]; 2408 Hispanic [2.56%]; 16 004 non-Hispanic Black [17.02%]; 69 052 non-Hispanic White [73.45%]; and 2334 with other or unknown race or ethnicity [2.48%]), including 47 245 patients (50.26%) who received a diagnosis of early-stage cancer, 19 491 (20.73%) who received a diagnosis of late-stage cancer , and 27 271 (29.01%) with unknown stage. Living outside the main catchment area was associated with higher odds of late-stage cancers for those who received only a diagnosis (odds ratio [OR], 1.50; 95% CI, 1.10-2.05) or only treatment (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.28-1.61) at SKCCC. Non-Hispanic Black patients (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.10-1.23) and those with Medicaid (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.46-1.86) and no insurance at time of treatment (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.79-2.51) also had higher odds of receiving a late-stage cancer diagnosis.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study of CCC data from 2010 to 2019, patients residing outside the main catchment area, non-Hispanic Black patients, and patients with Medicaid or no insurance had higher odds of late-stage diagnoses. These findings suggest that disadvantaged populations and those living outside of the main catchment area of a CCC may face barriers to screening and treatment. Care-sharing agreements among CCCs could address these issues.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Preventive Service Use Among Adults Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Our objective was to assess changes in preventive services use before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. We obtained secondary survey data from the National Health Interview Survey for 2019 and 2021. We examined, six preventive services among all adults. Descriptive and multivariate analyses assessed changes in preventive service use among adults and by race/ethnicity for 2019 and 2021 (drawing from an unweighted sample of 60 843 weighted to be 386.2 million across both years). We used Ordinary least squares estimation to conduct a difference-in-differences analysis that assessed changes in service use for non-white racial/ethnic groups relative to changes for white non-Hispanic adults between 2019 and 2021. We found preventive services use declined overall for each screening service assessed. Asian adults experienced the largest declines relative to white adults for "well visit within the last year" (-7.45 percentage points (pp) relative to white adults), "blood pressure screening within the last year" (-7.85 pp), and "mammograms within the last year" (-12.3 pp). While adults in other racial/ethnic groups did not experience significant declines in preventive services use relative to white adults between 2019 and 2021, pre-existing disparities remained for Hispanic and American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) adults compared to white adults. In conclusion, preventive service use declined in the first years of the COVID-19 public health emergency, and existing disparities in access for Hispanic and AIAN adults continued. Future research should investigate barriers Asian adults may face in obtaining access to preventive services after the conclusion of the public health emergency and federal pandemic-related protections.

COVID-19 pandemic impact on the potential exacerbation of screening mammography disparities: A population-based study in Ontario, Canada

Strategies to ramp up breast cancer screening after COVID-19 require data on the influence of the pandemic on groups of women with historically low screening uptake. Using data from Ontario, Canada, our objectives were to 1) quantify the overall pandemic impact on weekly bilateral screening mammography rates (per 100,000) of average-risk women aged 50-74 and 2) examine if COVID-19 has shifted any mammography inequalities according to age, immigration status, rurality, and access to material resources. Using a segmented negative binomial regression model, we estimated the mean change in rate at the start of the pandemic (the week of March 15, 2020) and changes in weekly trend of rates during the pandemic period (March 15-December 26, 2020) compared to the pre-pandemic period (January 3, 2016-March 14, 2020) for all women and for each subgroup. A 3-way interaction term (COVID-19*week*subgroup variable) was added to the model to detect any pandemic impact on screening disparities. Of the 3,481,283 mammograms, 8.6 % (n = 300,064) occurred during the pandemic period. Overall, the mean weekly rate dropped by 93.4 % (95 % CI 91.7 % - 94.8 %) at the beginning of COVID-19, followed by a weekly increase of 8.4 % (95 % CI 7.4 % - 9.4 %) until December 26, 2020. The pandemic did not shift any disparities (all interactions p > 0.05) and that women who were under 60 or over 70, immigrants, or with a limited access to material resources had persistently low screening rate in both periods. Interventions should proactively target these underserved populations with the goals of reducing advanced-stage breast cancer presentations and mortality.

Population simulation modeling of disparities in US breast cancer mortality

BACKGROUND

Populations of African American or Black women have persistently higher breast cancer mortality than the overall US population, despite having slightly lower age-adjusted incidence.

METHODS

Three Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network simulation teams modeled cancer mortality disparities between Black female populations and the overall US population. Model inputs used racial group-specific data from clinical trials, national registries, nationally representative surveys, and observational studies. Analyses began with cancer mortality in the overall population and sequentially replaced parameters for Black populations to quantify the percentage of modeled breast cancer morality disparities attributable to differences in demographics, incidence, access to screening and treatment, and variation in tumor biology and response to therapy.

RESULTS

Results were similar across the 3 models. In 2019, racial differences in incidence and competing mortality accounted for a net ‒1% of mortality disparities, while tumor subtype and stage distributions accounted for a mean of 20% (range across models = 13%-24%), and screening accounted for a mean of 3% (range = 3%-4%) of the modeled mortality disparities. Treatment parameters accounted for the majority of modeled mortality disparities: mean = 17% (range = 16%-19%) for treatment initiation and mean = 61% (range = 57%-63%) for real-world effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

Our model results suggest that changes in policies that target improvements in treatment access could increase breast cancer equity. The findings also highlight that efforts must extend beyond policies targeting equity in treatment initiation to include high-quality treatment completion. This research will facilitate future modeling to test the effects of different specific policy changes on mortality disparities.

Impact of age, race, and family history on COVID-19-related changes in breast cancer screening among the Boston mammography cohort study

PURPOSE

We studied women enrolled in the Boston Mammography Cohort Study to investigate whether subgroups defined by age, race, or family history of breast cancer experienced differences in the incidence of screening or diagnostic imaging rates during the COVID-19 lockdown and had slower rebound in the incidence of these rates during reopening.

METHODS

We compared the incidence of monthly breast cancer screening and diagnostic imaging rates over during the pre-COVID-19 (January 2019-February 2020), lockdown (March-May 2020), and reopening periods (June-December 2020), and tested for differences in the monthly incidence within the same period by age (< 50 vs ≥ 50), race (White vs non-White), and first-degree family history of breast cancer (yes vs no).

RESULTS

Overall, we observed a decline in breast cancer screening and diagnostic imaging rates over the three time periods (pre-COVID-19, lockdown, and reopening). The monthly incidence of breast cancer screening rates for women age ≥ 50 was 5% higher (p = 0.005) in the pre-COVID-19 period (January 2019-February 2020) but was 19% lower in the reopening phase (June-December 2020) than that of women aged < 50 (p < 0.001). White participants had 36% higher monthly incidence of breast cancer diagnostic imaging rates than non-White participants (p = 0.018).

CONCLUSION

The rebound in screening was lower in women age ≥ 50 and lower in non-White women for diagnostic imaging. Careful attention must be paid as the COVID-19 recovery continues to ensure equitable resumption of care.

Timing of Colposcopy and Risk of Cervical Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the association between time to colposcopy and risk of subsequent cervical cancer.

METHODS

A longitudinal analysis of patients aged 21-79 years with an abnormal cervical cancer test result from health care systems in Texas, Massachusetts, and Washington was performed. The outcome was a cervical cancer diagnosis 12 months or more after the abnormal result. The primary analysis compared receipt of colposcopy within 3 months (91 days or less) with receipt of colposcopy at 3-12 months (92-365 days) and no colposcopy within 12 months of the abnormal test result; post hoc analyses compared colposcopy within 12 months (365 days or less) with no colposcopy within 12 months. Associations were assessed with multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression controlling for age, risk status, result severity, and health care system.

RESULTS

Of 17,541 patients, 53.3% of patients received colposcopy within 3 months, 22.2% received colposcopy in 3-12 months, and 24.6% had no colposcopy within 12 months. One hundred forty-seven patients were diagnosed with cervical cancer within 12 months and removed from subsequent analyses. Sixty-five patients (0.4%) were diagnosed with cervical cancer more than 1 year (366 days or more) after the abnormal Pap or human papillomavirus test result. The risk of cervical cancer detection more than 1 year after the abnormal test result was not different in patients who received colposcopy within 3-12 months (hazard ratio [HR] 1.07, 95% CI 0.54-2.12) and higher among patients with no colposcopy within 12 months (HR 2.34, 95% CI 1.33-4.14) compared with patients who had colposcopy within 3 months. Post hoc analyses showed that the risk of cervical cancer diagnosis was 2.29-fold higher among those without colposcopy within 12 months compared with those who received colposcopy within 12 months (95% CI 1.37-3.83); among patients with high-grade cytology results, the risk of cervical cancer detection among those without colposcopy within 12 months was 3.12-fold higher compared with those who received colposcopy within 12 months (95% CI 1.47-6.70).

CONCLUSION

There was no difference in cervical cancer risk at more than 1 year between patients who received colposcopy within 3 months compared with those who received colposcopy within 3-12 months of an abnormal result. Patients who did not receive colposcopy within 12 months of an abnormal result had a higher risk of subsequent cervical cancer compared with those who received a colposcopy within 12 months.

A population-based survey of self-reported delays in breast, cervical, colorectal and lung cancer screening

The early COVID-19 pandemic was associated with cessation of screening services, but the prevalence of ongoing delays in cancer screening into the third year of the pandemic are not well-characterized. In February/March 2022, a population-based survey assessed cancer needs in New Hampshire and Vermont. The associations between cancer screening delays (breast, cervical, colorectal or lung cancer) and social determinants of health, health care access, and cancer attitudes and beliefs were tested. Distributions and Rao-Scott chi-square tests were used for hypothesis testing and weighted to represent state populations. Of 1717 participants, 55% resided in rural areas, 96% identified as White race, 50% were women, 36% had high school or less education. Screening delays were reported for breast cancer (28%), cervical cancer (30%), colorectal cancer (24%), and lung cancer (30%). Delays were associated with having higher educational attainment (lung), urban living (colorectal), and having Medicaid insurance (breast, cervical). Low confidence in ability to obtain information about cancer was associated with screening delays across screening types. The most common reason for delay was the perception that the screening test was not urgent (31% breast, 30% cervical, 28% colorectal). Cost was the most common reason for delayed lung cancer screening (36%). COVID-19 was indicated as a delay reason in 15-29% of respondents; 12-20% reported health system capacity during the pandemic as a reason for delay, depending on screening type. Interventions that address sub-populations and reasons for screening delays are needed to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer burden and mortality.

Mammography screening beliefs and barriers through the lens of Black women during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Mammography is an effective screening tool that leads to decreased breast cancer mortality, yet minority women continue to experience barriers. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been proven to have negatively affected minority communities, yet its effect on mammography screening habits in Black women is uncertain. The purpose of this study was to evaluate breast cancer mammography screening habits and barriers for Black women in two northeast communities amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

The study participants were Black women aged 40 years or older who were recruited from community outreach initiatives. Study coordinators conducted telephone surveys to determine mammography screening behaviors, perceptions, and psychosocial factors.

RESULTS

Two hundred seventy-seven surveys were completed. Two hundred fifty-six patients who reported ever having a mammogram became the study population of interest. One hundred seventy-four of these patients (68%) reported having a mammogram within the past year (nondelayed), and 82 (32%) had a mammogram more than a year ago (delayed). Only thirty-one of the delayed participants (37.8%) had private insurance. There was a significant difference in the mean score for mammography screening perceived barriers for nondelayed participants (mean = 9.9, standard deviation [SD] = 3.6) versus delayed participants (mean = 11.2, SD = 4.3, p = .03). There was also a significant difference in the mean score when they were asked, "How likely is it that 'other health problems would keep you from having a mammogram'?" (p = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

Barriers to mammography screening for Black women during the COVID-19 era include insurance, competing health issues, and perceptions of screening. Community outreach efforts should concentrate on building trust and collaborating with organizations to improve screening despite the COVID-19 pandemic.

Assessing patterns in cancer screening use by race and ethnicity during the coronavirus pandemic using electronic health record data

BACKGROUND

Efforts to prevent the spread of the coronavirus led to dramatic reductions in nonemergency medical care services during the first several months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Delayed or missed screenings can lead to more advanced stage cancer diagnoses with potentially worse health outcomes and exacerbate preexisting racial and ethnic disparities. The objective of this analysis was to examine how the pandemic affected rates of breast and colorectal cancer screenings by race and ethnicity.

METHODS

We analyzed panels of providers that placed orders in 2019-2020 for mammogram and colonoscopy cancer screenings using electronic health record (EHR) data. We used a difference-in-differences design to examine the extent to which changes in provider-level mammogram and colonoscopy orders declined over the first year of the pandemic and whether these changes differed across race and ethnicity groups.

RESULTS

We found considerable declines in both types of screenings from March through May 2020, relative to the same months in 2019, for all racial and ethnic groups. Some rebound in screenings occurred in June through December 2020, particularly among White and Black patients; however, use among other groups was still lower than expected.

CONCLUSIONS

This research suggests that many patients experienced missed or delayed screenings during the first few months of the pandemic, which could lead to detrimental health outcomes. Our findings also underscore the importance of having high-quality data on race and ethnicity to document and understand racial and ethnic disparities in access to care.

Statewide Examination of Access to Cancer Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic caused interruptions in the delivery of medical care across a wide range of conditions including cancer. Trends in surgical treatment for cancer during the pandemic have not been well described. We sought to characterize associations between the pandemic and access to surgical treatment for breast, colorectal, and lung cancer in Illinois.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study evaluating inpatient admissions at Illinois hospitals providing surgical care for lung cancer (n = 1913 cases, n = 64 hospitals), breast cancer (n = 910 cases, n = 108 hospitals), and colorectal cancer (n = 5339 cases, n = 144 hospitals). Using discharge data from the Illinois Health and Hospital Association's Comparative Health Care and Hospital Data Reporting Services database, average monthly surgical case volumes were compared from 2019 to 2020. We also compared rates of cancer surgery for each cancer type, by patient characteristics, and hospital type across the three time periods using Pearson chi-squared and ANOVA testing as appropriate. Three discrete time periods were considered: prepandemic (7-12/2019), primary pandemic (4-6/2020), and pandemic recovery (7-12/2020). Hospital characteristics evaluated included hospital type (academic, community, safety net), COVID-19 burden, and baseline cancer surgery volume.

RESULTS

There were 2096 fewer operations performed for breast, colorectal, and lung cancer in 2020 than 2019 in Illinois, with the greatest reductions in cancer surgery volume occurring at the onset of the pandemic in April (colorectal, -48.3%; lung, -13.1%) and May (breast, -45.2%) of 2020. During the pandemic, breast (-14.6%) and colorectal (-13.8%) cancer surgery experienced reductions in volume whereas lung cancer operations were more common (+26.4%) compared to 2019. There were no significant differences noted in gender, race, ethnicity, or insurance status among patients receiving oncologic surgery during the primary pandemic or pandemic recovery periods. Academic hospitals, hospitals with larger numbers of COVID-19 admissions, and those with greater baseline cancer surgery volumes were associated with the greatest reduction in cancer surgery during the primary pandemic period (all cancer types, P < 0.01). During the recovery period, hospitals with greater baseline breast and lung cancer surgery volumes remained at reduced surgery volumes compared to their counterparts (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with significant reductions in breast and colorectal cancer operations in Illinois, while lung cancer operations remained relatively consistent. Overall, there was a net reduction in cancer surgery that was not made up during the recovery period. Academic hospitals, those caring for more COVID-19 patients, and those with greater baseline surgery volumes were most vulnerable to reduced surgery rates during peaks of the pandemic and to delays in addressing the backlog of cases.

A Review of the Effect of COVID-19-Related Lockdowns on Global Cancer Screening

COVID-19 lockdowns have led to significant disruptions in preventative health services worldwide. This review aims to assess the impact of COVID-19 lockdowns on worldwide preventive cancer screening participation. Major medical databases were searched using the keywords 'lockdown,' 'cancer,' and 'screening or diagnosis,' and relevant articles were evaluated against inclusion and exclusion criteria. The final review consisted of 38 studies. The impact of COVID-19 on screening uptake was categorized based on cancer type. All types of screening had decreased participation during or around the lockdown period. Racial and socioeconomic disparities, provider-related barriers, and patient attitudes about service disruptions during the pandemic were also highlighted in this review. Future research should focus on data from low- and middle-income countries to obtain a more comprehensive picture of the problem. Policy interventions that adopt self-screening or different screening intervals can also be considered to reduce impacts in future crises. Insights from existing studies and future research will allow for more proactive measures to manage future disruptions.

Projected long-term effects of colorectal cancer screening disruptions following the COVID-19 pandemic

The aftermath of the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic may contribute to the widening of disparities in colorectal cancer (CRC) outcomes due to differential disruptions to CRC screening. This comparative microsimulation analysis uses two CISNET CRC models to simulate the impact of ongoing screening disruptions induced by the COVID-19 pandemic on long-term CRC outcomes. We evaluate three channels through which screening was disrupted: delays in screening, regimen switching, and screening discontinuation. The impact of these disruptions on long-term CRC outcomes was measured by the number of life-years lost due to CRC screening disruptions compared to a scenario without any disruptions. While short-term delays in screening of 3-18 months are predicted to result in minor life-years loss, discontinuing screening could result in much more significant reductions in the expected benefits of screening. These results demonstrate that unequal recovery of screening following the pandemic can widen disparities in CRC outcomes and emphasize the importance of ensuring equitable recovery to screening following the pandemic.

Disparities in lung cancer

Lung cancer is the second most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer death among men and women in the United States. Despite a substantial decline in lung cancer incidence and mortality across all races in the last few decades, medically underserved racial and ethnic minority populations continue to carry the greatest burden of disease throughout the lung cancer continuum. Black individuals experience a higher incidence of lung cancer due to lower rates of low-dose computed tomography screening, which translate into advanced disease stage at diagnosis and poorer survival outcomes compared with White individuals. With respect to treatment, Black patients are less likely to receive gold standard surgery, have access to biomarker testing or high-quality treatment compared with White patients. The reasons for those disparities are multifactorial and include socioeconomic (eg, poverty, lack of health insurance, and inadequate education), and geographic inequalities. The objective of this article is to review the sources of racial and ethnic disparities in lung cancer, and to propose recommendations to help address them.

Racial Disparities in Breast Cancer Presentation and Diagnosis in COVID-Era Central Texas

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted the diagnosis of breast cancer (BC). With a large Hispanic/Latinx population, early revocation of mask mandates, and lower vaccination rate than many other states, this study explores the relationship between COVID-19 and the presentation and diagnosis of BC patients in the unique socio-politico-economic context of Central Texas.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective review of the Seton Medical Center Austin tumor registry for BC patients from March 1, 2019 to March 2, 2021. We compared demographics, insurance status, clinical and pathologic stage, and time from diagnosis to intervention between "pre-COVID" (March 1, 2019- March 1, 2020) and "post-COVID" (March 2, 2020-March 2, 2021). We utilized descriptive, univariate, and multivariable logistic regression statistics.

RESULTS

There were 781 patients diagnosed with BC, with 113 fewer post-COVID compared to pre-COVID. The proportion of Black patients diagnosed with BC decreased post-COVID compared with pre-COVID (10.1%-4.5%, P = 0.002). When adjusting for other factors, uninsured and underinsured patients had increased odds of presenting with late-stage BC (odds ratio:5.40, P < 0.001). There was also an association between presenting with stage 2 or greater BC and delayed time-to-intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Although fewer women overall were diagnosed with BC post-COVID, the return to baseline diagnoses has yet to be seen. We identified a pandemic-related decrease in BC diagnoses in Black women and increased odds of late-stage cancer among uninsured patients, suggesting a disparate relationship between COVID-19 and health care access and affordability. Outreach and screening efforts should address strategies to engage Black and uninsured patients.

Local health department engagement with workplaces during the COVID-19 pandemic—Examining barriers of and facilitators to outbreak investigation and mitigation

Objectives

To document local health department (LHD) COVID-19 prevention or mitigation activities at workplaces in the United States and identify facilitators for and barriers to these efforts.

Methods

We conducted a web-based, cross-sectional national probability survey of United States LHDs (n = 181 unweighted; n = 2,284 weighted) from January to March 2022, collecting information about worker complaints, surveillance, investigations, relationships and interactions with employers/businesses, and LHD capacity.

Results

Overall, 94% LHD respondents reported investigating workplace-linked COVID-19 cases; however, 47% reported insufficient capacity to effectively receive, investigate and respond to COVID-19-related workplace safety complaints. Prior relationships with jurisdiction employers and LHD personnel with formal occupational health and safety (OHS) training were predictors of proactive outreach to prevent COVID-19 spread in workplaces (p &lt; 0.01 and p &lt; 0.001). LHD size predicted OHS personnel and sufficient financial resources to support workplace investigation and mitigation activities (p &lt; 0.001).

Conclusions

Differences in LHD capacity to effectively respond to communicable disease spread in workplaces may exacerbate health disparities, especially between rural and urban settings. Improving LHD OHS capacity, especially in smaller jurisdictions, could facilitate effective prevention and mitigation of workplace communicable disease spread.

How Trust in Cancer Information Has Changed in the Era of COVID-19: Patterns by Race and Ethnicity

COVID-19 emerged during an era of heightened attention to systemic racism and the spread of misinformation. This context may have impacted public trust in health information about chronic diseases like cancer. Here, we examine data from the 2018 and 2020 Health Information National Trends Survey (N = 7,369) to describe how trust in cancer information from government health agencies, doctors, family and friends, charitable organizations, and religious organizations changed after COVID-19 became a pandemic, and whether that change varied by race/ethnicity. Statistical methods included chi-square tests and multiple logistic regression modeling. Overall, the proportion of respondents who reported a high degree of trust in cancer information from doctors increased (73.65% vs. 77.34%, p = .04). Trends for trust in information from government health agencies and family and friends varied significantly by race/ethnicity, with substantial declines observed among non-Hispanic Blacks (NHB) only. The odds of reporting a high degree of trust in cancer information from government health agencies and friends and family decreased by 53% (OR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.24-0.93) and 73% (OR = 0.27, 95% CI = 0.09-0.82), respectively, among NHB, but were stable for other groups. Future studies should monitor whether recent declines in trust among NHB persist and unfavorably impact participation in preventive care.

Breast cancer screening during the COVID-19 pandemic: moving from disparities to health equity

The COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented disruptions to routine health care in the United States. Screening mammography, a cornerstone of breast cancer control and prevention, was completely halted in the spring of 2020, and screening programs have continued to face challenges with subsequent COVID-19 waves. Although screening mammography rates decreased for all women during the pandemic, a number of studies have now clearly documented that reductions in screening have been greater for some populations than others. Specifically, minoritized women have been screened at lower rates than White women across studies, although the specific patterns of disparity vary depending on the populations and communities studied. We posit that these disparities are likely due to a variety of structural and contextual factors, including the differential impact of COVID-19 on communities. We also outline key considerations for closing gaps in screening mammography. First, practices, health systems, and communities must measure screening mammography use to identify whether gaps exist and which populations are most affected. Second, we propose that strategies to close disparities in breast cancer screening must be multifaceted, targeting the health system or practice, but also structural factors at the policy level. Health disparities arise from a complex set of conditions, and multimodal solutions that address the complex, multifactorial conditions that lead to disparities may be more likely to succeed and are necessary for promoting health equity.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination among a national sample of United States adults ages 18-45: A cross-sectional study

To assess how the COVID-19 pandemic affected catch-up HPV vaccination among age-eligible adults (ages 18-45). The current study leverages a national, cross-sectional sample of US adults ages 18-45 years to assess the prevalence and determinants of COVID-19 pandemic-related disruptions to catch-up HPV vaccination in 2021. The sample was restricted to adults intending to receive the HPV vaccine. Multinomial logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess the probability of 1) pandemic-related HPV vaccination disruption and 2) uncertainty about pandemic-related HPV vaccination disruption. Report of 'no pandemic-related HPV vaccination disruption' served as the reference category. Among adults intending to get the HPV vaccine (n = 1,683), 8.6 % reported pandemic-related HPV vaccination disruption, 14.7 % reported uncertainty about vaccination disruption, and 76.7 % reported no disruption. Factors associated with higher odds of pandemic-related vaccination disruption included non-English language preference (OR: 3.20; 95 % CI: 1.99-5.13), being a parent/guardian (OR: 1.77; 95 % CI: 1.18-2.66), having at least one healthcare visit in the past year (OR: 1.97; 95 % CI: 1.10-3.53), being up-to-date on the tetanus vaccine (OR: 1.81; 95 % CI: 1.19-2.75), and being a cancer survivor (OR: 2.57; 95 % CI: 1.52-4.34). Catch-up HPV vaccination for age-eligible adults is a critical public health strategy for reducing HPV-related cancers. While a small percentage of adults reported pandemic-related disruptions to HPV vaccination, certain adults (e.g., individuals with a non-English language preference and cancer survivors) were more likely to report a disruption. Interventions may be needed that increase accessibility of catch-up HPV vaccination among populations with reduced healthcare access during the pandemic.

Impact of facilitating continued accessibility to cancer care during COVID-19 lockdown on perceived wellbeing of cancer patients at a rural cancer center in Rwanda

During the COVID-19 pandemic in Rwanda, Partners In Health Inshuti Mu Buzima collaborated with the Butaro Cancer Center of Excellence (BCCOE) to mitigate disruptions to cancer care by providing patients with free transportation to treatment sites and medication delivery at patients' local health facilities. We assessed the relationship between facilitated access to care and self-reported wellbeing outcomes. This cross-sectional telephone survey included cancer patients enrolled at BCCOE in March 2020. We used linear regression to compare six dimensions of quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30), depression (PHQ-9), anxiety (GAD-7), and financial toxicity (COST) among patients who did and did not receive facilitated access to care. We also assessed access to cancer care and whether patient wellbeing and its association with facilitated access to care differed by socioeconomic status. Of 214 respondents, 34.6% received facilitated access to care. Facilitated patients were more likely to have breast cancer and be on chemotherapy. Facilitation was significantly associated with more frequent in-person clinical encounters, improved perceived quality of cancer care, and reduced transportation-related barriers. Facilitated patients had significantly better global health status (β = 9.14, 95% CI: 2.3, 16.0, p <0.01) and less financial toxicity (β = 2.62, 95% CI: 0.2,5.0, p = 0.03). However, over half of patients reported missing or delaying appointment. Patient wellbeing was low overall and differed by patient socioeconomic status, with poor patients consistently showing worse outcomes. Socioeconomic status did not modify the association between facilitated access to care and wellbeing indicators. Further, facilitation did not lead to equitable wellbeing outcomes between richer and poorer patients. Facilitated access to care during COVID-19 pandemic was associated with some improvements in access to cancer care and patient wellbeing. However, cancer patients still experienced substantial disruptions to care and reported low overall levels of wellbeing, with socioeconomic disparities persisting despite facilitated access to care. Implementing more robust, equity-minded facilitation and better patient outreach programs during health emergencies may promote better care and strengthen patient care overall and effect better patients' outcomes.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Women's Health Care Access: A Cross-Sectional Study

Background: There has been limited study of how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected women's health care access. Our study aims to examine the prevalence and correlates of COVID-19-related disruptions to (1) primary care; (2) gynecologic care; and (3) preventive health care among women. Materials and Methods: We recruited 4,000 participants from a probability-based online panel. We conducted four multinomial logistic regression models, one for each of the study outcomes: (1) primary care access; (2) gynecologic care access; (3) patient-initiated disruptions to preventive visits; and (4) provider-initiated disruptions to preventive visits. Results: The sample included 1,285 women. One in four women (28.5%) reported that the pandemic affected their primary care access. Sexual minority women (SMW) (odds ratios [OR]: 1.67; 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 1.19-2.33) had higher odds of reporting pandemic-related effects on primary care access compared to women identifying as heterosexual. Cancer survivors (OR: 2.07; 95% CI: 1.25-3.42) had higher odds of reporting pandemic-related effects on primary care access compared to women without a cancer history. About 16% of women reported that the pandemic affected their gynecologic care access. Women with a cancer history (OR: 2.34; 95% CI: 1.35-4.08) had higher odds of reporting pandemic-related effects on gynecologic care compared to women without a cancer history. SMW were more likely to report patient- and provider-initiated delays in preventive health care. Other factors that affected health care access included income, insurance status, and having a usual source of care. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted women's health care access and disproportionately affected access among SMW and women with a cancer history, suggesting that targeted interventions may be needed to ensure adequate health care access during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Impact of COVID-19 on cancer screening: a global perspective

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cancer screening disruption due to COVID-19 may have a significant impact on patients, healthcare practitioners, and healthcare systems. In this present review, we aim to offer a comprehensive view of the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer screening programs worldwide.

RECENT FINDINGS

The present review comprised 33 publications. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the rates of cancer screening investigations were drastically reduced worldwide. Screening rates plummeted for all types of cancer, all ages, and racial/ethnic groups. Reductions in screening percentages were higher in several underserved racial groups. Cancer screening was suspended for at least 30 days in 13 countries.

SUMMARY

Screenings for all types of cancer fell sharply. In the chain of cancer management, delays in any step are liable to change the outcome of the next step. Further long-term research will be needed to fully comprehend the impact of the pandemic on cancer services and patient outcomes.

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

Purpose: To evaluate and quantify potential sociodemographic disparities in breast cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the use of telemedicine. Methods: We fielded a 52-item web-based questionnaire from 14 May 2020 to 1 July 2020 in partnership with several U.S.-based breast cancer advocacy groups. Individuals aged 18 or older were eligible for this study if they: (1) received routine breast cancer screening; OR (2) were undergoing diagnostic evaluation for breast cancer; OR (3) had ever been diagnosed with breast cancer. We used descriptive statistics to understand the extent of cancer care delay and telemedicine adoption and used multivariable logistic regression models to estimate the association of sociodemographic factors with odds of COVID-19-related delays in care and telemedicine use. Results: Of 554 eligible survey participants, 493 provided complete data on demographic and socioeconomic factors and were included in the analysis. Approximately half (n = 248, 50.3%) had a personal history of breast cancer. Overall, 188 (38.1%) participants had experienced any COVID-19-related delay in care including screening, diagnosis, or treatment, and 339 (68.8) reported having at least one virtual appointment during the study period. Compared to other insurance types, participants with Medicaid insurance were 2.58 times more likely to report a COVID-19-related delay in care (OR 2.58, 95% Cl: 1.05, 6.32; p = 0.039). Compared to participants with a household income of less than USD 50,000, those with a household income of USD 150,000 or more were 2.38 (OR 2.38, 95% Cl: 1.09, 5.17; p = 0.029) times more likely to adopt virtual appointments. Self-insured participants were 70% less likely to use virtual appointment compared to those in other insurance categories (OR 0.28, 95% Cl: 0.11, 0.73; p = 0.009). Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on breast cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment, and accelerated the delivery of virtual care. Lower-income groups and patients with certain insurance categories such as Medicaid or self-insured could be more likely to experience care delay or less likely to use telemedicine. Careful attention must be paid to vulnerable groups to insure equity in breast cancer-related service utilization and telemedicine access during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Breast cancer diagnosis and treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic in a nationwide, insured population

Purpose

The early months of the COVID-19 pandemic led to reduced cancer screenings and delayed cancer surgeries. We used insurance claims data to understand how breast cancer incidence and treatment after diagnosis changed nationwide over the course of the pandemic.

Methods

Using the Optum Research Database from January 2017 to March 2021, including approximately 19 million US adults with commercial health insurance, we identified new breast cancer diagnoses and first treatment after diagnosis. We compared breast cancer incidence and proportion of newly diagnosed patients receiving pre-operative systemic therapy pre-COVID, in the first 2 months of the COVID pandemic and in the later part of the COVID pandemic.

Results

Average monthly breast cancer incidence was 19.3 (95% CI 19.1–19.5) cases per 100,000 women and men pre-COVID, 11.6 (95% CI 10.8–12.4) per 100,000 in April–May 2020, and 19.7 (95% CI 19.3–20.1) per 100,000 in June 2020–February 2021. Use of pre-operative systemic therapy was 12.0% (11.7–12.4) pre-COVID, 37.7% (34.9–40.7) for patients diagnosed March–April 2020, and 14.8% (14.0–15.7) for patients diagnosed May 2020–January 2021. The changes in breast cancer incidence across the pandemic did not vary by demographic factors. Use of pre-operative systemic therapy across the pandemic varied by geographic region, but not by area socioeconomic deprivation or race/ethnicity.

Conclusion

In this US-insured population, the dramatic changes in breast cancer incidence and the use of pre-operative systemic therapy experienced in the first 2 months of the pandemic did not persist, although a modest change in the initial management of breast cancer continued.

Impact of the COVID-19 breast cancer screening hiatus on clinical stage and racial disparities in New York City

Background

The impact of the COVID-19 mammography screening hiatus as well as of post-hiatus efforts promoting restoration of elective healthcare on breast cancer detection patterns and stage distribution is unknown.

Methods

Newly diagnosed breast cancer patients (2019–2021) at the New York Presbyterian (NYP) Hospital Network were analyzed. Chi-square and student's t-test compared characteristics of patients presenting before and after the screening hiatus.

Results

A total of 2137 patients were analyzed. Frequency of screen-detected and early-stage breast cancer declined post-hiatus (59.7%), but returned to baseline (69.3%). Frequency of screen-detected breast cancer was lowest for African American (AA) (57.5%) and Medicaid patients pre-hiatus (57.2%), and this disparity was reduced post-hiatus (65.3% for AA and 63.2% for Medicaid).

Conclusions

The return to baseline levels of screen-detected cancer, particularly among AA and Medicaid patients suggest that large-scale breast health education campaigns may be effective in resuming screening practices and in mitigating disparities.

Improving Equity in Cancer Care in the Face of a Public Health Emergency

ABSTRACT

Cancer health disparities have been well documented among different populations in the United States for decades. While the cause of these disparities is multifactorial, the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the structural barriers to health and health care and the gaps in public health infrastructure within the United States. The most long-standing inequities are rooted in discriminatory practices, current and historical, which have excluded and disenfranchised many of the most vulnerable populations in the nation. These systemic barriers are themselves a public health crisis, resulting in increased mortality rates in communities of color from both COVID-19 and cancer. While implementing programs to temporarily improve cancer equity locally or regionally is laudable, it is imperative to develop a public health strategy focused on alleviating the root causes of health inequities to improve the health and well-being of every citizen and ensure readiness for the next public health emergency.

Learning through a Pandemic: The Current State of Knowledge on COVID-19 and Cancer

The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has left patients with current or past history of cancer facing disparate consequences at every stage of the cancer trajectory. This comprehensive review offers a landscape analysis of the current state of the literature on COVID-19 and cancer, including the immune response to COVID-19, risk factors for severe disease, and impact of anticancer therapies. We also review the latest data on treatment of COVID-19 and vaccination safety and efficacy in patients with cancer, as well as the impact of the pandemic on cancer care, including the urgent need for rapid evidence generation and real-world study designs. SIGNIFICANCE: Patients with cancer have faced severe consequences at every stage of the cancer journey due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This comprehensive review offers a landscape analysis of the current state of the field regarding COVID-19 and cancer. We cover the immune response, risk factors for severe disease, and implications for vaccination in patients with cancer, as well as the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care delivery. Overall, this review provides an in-depth summary of the key issues facing patients with cancer during this unprecedented health crisis.

Nimble Approach: fast, adapting, calculating and ethically mindful approach to managing colorectal cancer screening programmes during a pandemic

OBJECTIVE

To describe a conceptual framework that provides understanding of the challenges encountered and the adaptive approaches taken by organised colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN

This was a qualitative case study of international CRC screening programmes. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with programme managers/leaders and programme experts, researchers and clinical leaders of large, population-based screening programmes. Data analysis, using elements of grounded theory, as well as cross-cases analysis was conducted by two experienced qualitative researchers.

RESULTS

19 participants were interviewed from seven programmes in North America, Europe and Australasia. A conceptual framework ('Nimble Approach') was the key outcome of the analysis. Four concepts constitute this approach to managing CRC screening programmes during COVID-19: Fast (meeting the need to make decisions and communicate quickly), Adapting (flexibly and creatively managing testing/colonoscopy capacity, access and backlogs), Calculating (modelling and actively monitoring programmes to inform decision-making and support programme quality) and Ethically Mindful (considering ethical conundrums emerging from programme responses). Highly integrated programmes, those with highly integrated communication networks, and that managed greater portions of the screening process seemed best positioned to respond to the crisis.

CONCLUSIONS

The Nimble Approach has potentially broad applications; it can be deployed to effectively respond to programme-specific challenges or manage CRC programmes during future pandemics, other health crises or emergencies.