Consultations for clinical features of possible cancer and associated urgent referrals before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: an observational cohort study from English primary care

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on electronic referrals to rapid access clinics for suspected breast, lung and prostate cancers in Ireland

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic impacted cancer services worldwide. We examined the effect of the first three pandemic waves on the number of electronic (e)-referrals to rapid access clinics (RACs) for breast, lung and prostate cancer in Ireland.

METHODS

This study used a retrospective, repeated cross-sectional design. The predicted weekly number of e-referrals by suspected cancer types from March 2020 to May 2021 was calculated using the Holt-Winters seasonal smoothing method, based on the observed numbers from a representative pre-pandemic period (01 January 2019 to 01 March 2020) and compared this with the observed number across the first three pandemic waves (02 March 2020 to 09 May 2021). Percentage differences were calculated between observed and predicted numbers of e-referrals for the three RACs and patterns were examined in each wave.

RESULTS

Observed e-referrals were lower than predicted for all three RACs in the first wave of the pandemic (15.7% lower for breast, 39.5% lower for lung and 28.1% lower for prostate) with varying levels of recovery in the second and third waves for the three e-referral types.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic impacted patterns of e-referrals to RACs in the first three pandemic waves in Ireland. Early identification of changes in engagement with health services, such as a decrease in primary care presentations with a resultant decrease in e-referrals to RACs can allow for a rapid response from cancer control programmes. Continued surveillance of the impact of service disruption on cancer services allows policy makers and strategic leaders in cancer control programmes to respond rapidly to mitigate the impact on cancer outcomes.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on bone and soft tissue sarcoma patients' consultation and diagnosis

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic negatively affected the diagnosis and treatment of several cancer types. However, this pandemic's exact impact and extent on bone and soft tissue sarcomas need to be clarified. We aimed to investigate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic and emergency declaration by the local government on consultation behavior and clinical stage at diagnosis of bone and soft tissue sarcoma. A total of 403 patients diagnosed with bone and soft tissue sarcoma who initially visited three sarcoma treatment hospitals between January 2018 and December 2021 were included. The monthly number of newly diagnosed soft tissue sarcoma patients was reduced by 25%, and the proportion of soft tissue patients with stage IV disease at diagnosis significantly increased by 9% during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to before the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, the monthly number of new primary bone and soft tissue sarcoma patients significantly decreased by 43% during the state of emergency declaration. The COVID-19 pandemic had a negative impact on soft tissue sarcoma patients' consultation behavior and increased the proportion of advanced-stage patients at initial diagnosis. An emergency declaration by the local government also negatively affected primary bone and soft tissue sarcoma patients' consultation behavior.

Transforming post pandemic cancer services

This paper outlines the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer services in the UK including screening, symptomatic diagnosis, treatment pathways and projections on clinical outcomes as a result of these care disruptions. A restoration of cancer services to pre-pandemic levels is not likely to mitigate this adverse impact, particularly with an ageing population and increased cancer burden. New cancer cases are projected to rise to over 500,000 per year by 2035, with over 4 million people living with and beyond cancer. This paper calls for a strategic transformation to prioritise effort on the basis of available datasets and evidence-in particular, to prioritise cancers where an earlier diagnosis is feasible and clinically useful with a focus on mortality benefit by preventing emergency presentations by harnessing data and analytics. This could be delivered by a focus on underperforming groups/areas to try and reduce inequity, linking near real-time datasets with clinical decision support systems at the primary and secondary care levels, promoting the use of novel technologies to improve patient uptake of services, screening and diagnosis, and finally, upskilling and cross-skilling healthcare workers to expand supply of diagnostic and screening services.

General practice service use at the end-of-life before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a population-based cohort study using primary care electronic health records

BACKGROUND

Globally, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused unprecedented strain in healthcare systems, but little is known about how it affected patients requiring palliative and end-of-life care from GPs.

AIM

To evaluate the impact of the pandemic on primary care service use in the last 3 months of life, including consultations and prescribing, and to identify associated factors.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A retrospective cohort study in UK, using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

METHOD

The study cohort included those who died between 2019 and 2020. Poisson regression models using generalised estimation equations were used to examine the association between primary care use and patient characteristics. Adjusted rate ratios (aRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were estimated.

RESULTS

A total of 44 534 patients died during the study period. The pandemic period was associated with an 8.9% increase in the rate of consultations from 966.4 to 1052.9 per 1000 person-months, and 14.3% longer telephone consultation duration (from 10.1 to 11.5 minutes), with a switch from face-to-face to telephone or video consultations. The prescription of end-of-life care medications increased by 6.3%, from 1313.7 to 1396.3 per 1000 person-months. The adjusted rate ratios for consultations (aRR = 1.08, 95% CI = 1.06 to 1.10, P<0.001) and prescriptions (aRR 1.05: 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.07, P<0.001) also increased during the pandemic.

CONCLUSION

The pandemic had a major impact on GP service use, leading to longer consultations, shifts from face-to-face to telephone or video consultations, and increased prescriptions. GP workload-related issues must be addressed urgently to ease the pressure on GPs.

How has the COVID-19 pandemic affected the delivery of preventive healthcare? An interrupted time series analysis of adults in English primary care from 2018 to 2022

OBJECTIVE

Offering advice and support for smoking, obesity, excess alcohol, and physical inactivity is an evidence-based component of primary care. The objective was to quantify the impact of the pandemic on the rate of advice or referral for these four risk factors.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study using primary care data from 1847 practices in England and 21,191,389 patients contributing to the Oxford Clinical Informatics Digital Hub. An interrupted time series analysis was undertaken with a single change point (March 2020). Monthly trends were modelled from 1st January 2018 - 30th June 2022 using segmented linear regression.

RESULTS

There was an initial step reduction in advice and referrals for smoking, obesity, excess alcohol, and physical inactivity in March 2020. By June 2022, advice on smoking (slope change -0.02 events per hundred patient years/month (EPH/month); 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17, 0.21), obesity (0.06 EPH/month; 95% CI 0.01, 0.12), alcohol (0.02 EPH/month; 95% CI -0.01, 0.05) and physical inactivity (0.05 EPH/month; 95% CI 0.01, 0.09) had not returned to pre-pandemic levels. Similarly, smoking cessation referral remained lower (0.01 EPH/month; 95% CI -0.01, 0.09), excess alcohol referral returned to similar levels (0.0005 EPH/month; 95% CI 0.0002, 0.0008), while referral for obesity (0.14 EPH/month; 95% CI 0.10, 0.19) and physical inactivity (0.01 EPH/month; 95% CI 0.01, 0.02) increased relative to pre-pandemic rates.

CONCLUSION

Advice and support for smoking, and advice for weight, excess alcohol and physical inactivity have not returned to pre-pandemic levels. Clinicians and policy makers should prioritise preventive care in COVID-19 recovery plans.

Inequalities in the recovery of colorectal cancer services during the COVID-19 pandemic: a national population-based study

AIM

Evidence is lacking on whether there were inequalities in the recovery of colorectal cancer (CRC) services within the English National Health Service (NHS) following the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study was to evaluate recovery according to patient age and socioeconomic status.

METHOD

Using routinely collected data, CRC patients diagnosed and treated in the English NHS were identified for two timeframes: the 'initial pandemic period' (April-June 2020) and the 'pandemic period' (April 2020-March 2022). Poisson models evaluated changes in numbers of diagnoses, major resections, adjuvant chemotherapy and neoadjuvant radiotherapy use for each timeframe, relative to the equivalent pre-pandemic timeframe (April-June 2019 and April 2018-March 2020, respectively), stratified by age and socioeconomic status. Tumour stage at presentation was evaluated over time.

RESULTS

Substantial deficits in diagnoses, major resections and adjuvant chemotherapy were identified in the initial pandemic period, whilst the use of neoadjuvant radiotherapy increased. Overall, these deficits recovered. Patients outside screening age, and in the most deprived group, had greater deficits in diagnoses and major resections. There was no evidence of stage migration by June 2021.

CONCLUSIONS

CRC services showed recovery to baseline during the pandemic. However, evident inequalities must be addressed in ongoing recovery efforts. Long-term outcomes will fully establish the impact of the pandemic on CRC patients.

Utility of a quick diagnostic unit during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic for the diagnosis of cancer

OBJECTIVES

To analyse changes in health care activity, time of referral and diagnosis intervals and the incidence of cancer during the first two years of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in a quick diagnosis unit.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective observational study was carried out during the prepandemic year (March 1, 2019, to February 29, 2020) and the first two years of the pandemic (March 1, 2020, to February 28, 2022). Demographic and clinical variables, the first visit interval, the diagnosis interval and the first visit-diagnosis interval were evaluated and compared.

RESULTS

During the first pandemic wave, there was a reduction in referrals (-32.6%), which then increased 8.1% and 17.7% from the second wave until the end of the first pandemic year and the second pandemic year, respectively. An increase in referrals to primary care and a decrease in emergencies were identified. The increase in cancer diagnoses of 2.7% and 15.7% in the two years of the pandemic was proportional to the increase in referrals. No changes were observed in benign processes or in cancer locations and stages. The first visit interval was higher for benign diseases (p<0.0001). A prolongation of the diagnosis interval was observed in cancer patients, although during the three years of the study the median was <15 days.

CONCLUSIONS

The impact of the pandemic affected the length of intervals and the origins of referrals. The quick diagnosis units constitutes and urgent complementary cancer diagnostic route with a high diagnosis yield.

What is the impact of hospital and surgeon volumes on outcomes in rectal cancer surgery?

AIM

Evidence for a positive volume-outcome relationship for rectal cancer surgery is unclear. This study aims to evaluate the volume-outcome relationship for rectal cancer surgery at hospital and surgeon level in the English National Health Service (NHS).

METHOD

All patients undergoing a rectal cancer resection in the English NHS between 2015 and 2019 were included. Multilevel multivariable logistic regression was used to model relationships between outcomes and mean annual hospital and surgeon volumes (using a linear plus a quadratic term for volume) with adjustment for patient characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 13 858 patients treated in 166 hospitals were included. Six hospitals (3.6%) performed fewer than 10 rectal cancer resections per year, and 381 surgeons (45.0%) performed fewer than five such resections per year. Patients treated by high-volume surgeons had a reduced length of stay (p = 0.016). No statistically significant volume-outcome relationships were demonstrated for 90-day mortality, 30-day unplanned readmission, unplanned return to theatre, stoma at 18 months following anterior resection, positive circumferential resection margin and 2-year all-cause mortality at either hospital or surgeon level (p values > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Almost half of colorectal surgeons in England do not meet national guidelines for rectal cancer surgeons to perform a minimum of five major resections annually. However, our results suggest that centralizing rectal cancer surgery with the main focus of increasing operative volume may have limited impact on NHS surgical outcomes. Therefore, quality improvement initiatives should address a wider range of evidence-based process measures, across the multidisciplinary care pathway, to enhance outcomes for patients with rectal cancer.

National Cancer Diagnosis Audits for England 2018 versus 2014: a comparative analysis

BACKGROUND

Timely diagnosis of cancer in patients who present with symptoms in primary care is a quality-improvement priority.

AIM

To examine possible changes to aspects of the diagnostic process, and its timeliness, before and after publication of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (2015) guidance on the referral of suspected cancer in primary care.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Comparison of findings from population-based clinical audits of cancer diagnosis in general practices in England for patients diagnosed in 2018 or 2014.

METHOD

GPs in 1878 (2018) and 439 (2014) practices collected primary care information on the diagnostic pathway of cancer patients. Key measures including patient characteristics, place of presentation, number of pre-referral consultations, use of primary care investigations, and referral type were compared between the two audits by descriptive analysis and regression models.

RESULTS

Among 64 489 (2018) and 17 042 (2014) records of a new cancer diagnosis, the percentage of patients with same-day referral (denoted by a primary care interval of 0 days) was higher in 2018 (42.7% versus 37.7%) than in 2014, with similar improvements in median diagnostic interval (36 days versus 40 days). Compared with 2014, in 2018: fewer patients had ≥3 pre-referral consultations (18.8% versus 26.2%); use of primary care investigations increased (47.9% versus 45.4%); urgent cancer referrals increased (54.8% versus 51.8%); emergency referrals decreased (13.4% versus 16.5%); and recorded use of safety netting decreased (40.0% versus 44.4%).

CONCLUSION

In the 5-year period, including the year when national guidelines were updated (that is, 2015), there were substantial improvements to the diagnostic process of patients who present to general practice in England with symptoms of a subsequently diagnosed cancer.

Delayed diagnosis resulting in increased disease burden in multiple myeloma: the legacy of the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has had global healthcare impacts, including high mortality from SARS-CoV-2 infection in cancer patients; individuals with multiple myeloma (MM) are especially susceptible to poor outcomes. However, even for MM patients who avoided severe infection, the ramifications of the pandemic have been considerable. The consequences of necessary socio-geographical behavior adaptation, including prolonged shielding and interruptions in delivery of non-pandemic medical services are yet to be fully understood. Using a real-world dataset of 323 consecutive newly diagnosed MM patients in England, we investigated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on routes to myeloma diagnosis, disease stage at presentation and relevant clinical outcomes. We demonstrate increasing MM presentations via emergency services and increased rates of bony and extra-medullary disease. Differences were seen in choice of induction therapy and the proportion of eligible patients undertaking autologous stem cell transplantation. Whilst survival was statistically inferior for emergency presentations, significant survival differences have yet to be demonstrated for the entire cohort diagnosed during the pandemic, making extended follow-up critical in this group. This dataset highlights wide-ranging issues facing MM patients consequent of the COVID-19 pandemic, with full impacts for clinicians and policy-makers yet to be elucidated.

Impact of the COVID-19 Outbreak-Delayed Referral of Colorectal and Lung Cancer in Primary Care: A National Retrospective Cohort Study

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak impacted health care. We investigated its impact on the time to referral and diagnosis for symptomatic cancer patients in The Netherlands. We performed a national retrospective cohort study utilizing primary care records linked to The Netherlands Cancer Registry. For patients with symptomatic colorectal, lung, breast, or melanoma cancer, we manually explored free and coded texts to determine the durations of the primary care (IPC) and secondary care (ISC) diagnostic intervals during the first COVID-19 wave and pre-COVID-19. We found that the median IPC duration increased for colorectal cancer from 5 days (Interquartile Range (IQR) 1-29 days) pre-COVID-19 to 44 days (IQR 6-230, p < 0.01) during the first COVID-19 wave, and for lung cancer, the duration increased from 15 days (IQR) 3-47) to 41 days (IQR 7-102, p < 0.01). For breast cancer and melanoma, the change in IPC duration was negligible. The median ISC duration only increased for breast cancer, from 3 (IQR 2-7) to 6 days (IQR 3-9, p < 0.01). For colorectal cancer, lung cancer, and melanoma, the median ISC durations were 17.5 (IQR (9-52), 18 (IQR 7-40), and 9 (IQR 3-44) days, respectively, similar to pre-COVID-19 results. In conclusion, for colorectal and lung cancer, the time to primary care referral was substantially prolonged during the first COVID-19 wave. In such crises, targeted primary care support is needed to maintain effective cancer diagnosis.

Impact of Multiple COVID-19 Waves on Gynaecological Cancer Services in the UK

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess the impact of multiple COVID-19 waves on UK gynaecological-oncology services.

METHODS

An online survey was distributed to all UK-British-Gynaecological-Cancer-Society members during three COVID-19 waves from 2020 to2022.

RESULTS

In total, 51 hospitals (including 32 cancer centres) responded to Survey 1, 42 hospitals (29 centres) to Survey 2, and 39 hospitals (30 centres) to Survey 3. During the first wave, urgent referrals reportedly fell by a median of 50% (IQR = 25-70%). In total, 49% hospitals reported reduced staffing, and the greatest was noted for trainee doctors, by a median of 40%. Theatre capacity was reduced by a median of 40%. A median of 30% of planned operations was postponed. Multidisciplinary meetings were completely virtual in 39% and mixed in 65% of the total. A median of 75% of outpatient consultations were remote. By the second wave, fewer hospitals reported staffing reductions, and there was a return to pre-pandemic urgent referrals and multidisciplinary workloads. Theatre capacity was reduced by a median of 10%, with 5% of operations postponed. The third wave demonstrated worsening staff reductions similar to Wave 1, primarily from sickness. Pre-pandemic levels of urgent referrals/workload continued, with little reduction in surgical capacity.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 led to a significant disruption of gynaecological-cancer care across the UK, including reduced staffing, urgent referrals, theatre capacity, and working practice changes. Whilst disruption eased and referrals/workloads returned to normal, significant staff shortages remained in 2022, highlighting persistent capacity constraints.

Underlying cancer risk among patients with fatigue and other vague symptoms: a population-based cohort study in primary care

BACKGROUND

Presenting to primary care with fatigue is associated with slightly increased cancer risk, although it is unknown how this varies in the presence of other 'vague' symptoms.

AIM

To quantify cancer risk in patients with fatigue who present with other 'vague' symptoms in the absence of 'alarm' symptoms for cancer.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Cohort study of patients presenting in UK primary care with new-onset fatigue during 2007-2015, using Clinical Practice Research Datalink data linked to national cancer registration data.

METHOD

Patients presenting with fatigue without co-occurring alarm symptoms or anaemia were identified, who were further characterised as having co-occurrence of 19 other 'vague' potential cancer symptoms. Sex- and age-specific 9-month cancer risk for each fatigue-vague symptom cohort were calculated.

RESULTS

Of 285 382 patients presenting with new-onset fatigue, 84% (n = 239 846) did not have co-occurring alarm symptoms or anaemia. Of these, 38% (n = 90 828) presented with ≥1 of 19 vague symptoms for cancer. Cancer risk exceeded 3% in older males with fatigue combined with any of the vague symptoms studied. The age at which risk exceeded 3% was 59 years for fatigue-weight loss, 65 years for fatigue-abdominal pain, 67 years for fatigue-constipation, and 67 years for fatigue-other upper gastrointestinal symptoms. For females, risk exceeded 3% only in older patients with fatigue-weight loss (from 65 years), fatigue-abdominal pain (from 79 years), or fatigue-abdominal bloating (from 80 years).

CONCLUSION

In the absence of alarm symptoms or anaemia, fatigue combined with specific vague presenting symptoms, alongside patient age and sex, can guide clinical decisions about referral for suspected cancer.

The Impact of the COVID Pandemic on the Incidence of Presentations with Cancer-Related Symptoms in Primary Care

Simple Summary

The coronavirus pandemic profoundly affected how patients access health care services, as many individuals attempted to minimise risks of infectious contact and reduce burdens on health systems. This study aims to explore the effects of the coronavirus pandemic on patient presentations for cancer-related symptoms in primary care. It utilises routine clinical data for 1.23 million people in the Netherlands, comparing the first year of the pandemic to the two years prior. These data identify a 34% reduction in the incidence of cancer-related symptoms during the first wave (March to June 2020), with overall incidence returning to pre-corona levels after this period. In the first wave, the incidence of many symptoms was substantially reduced: breast lump (−17%), haematuria (−15%), abdominal mass (−21%), tiredness (−45%), lymphadenopathy (−25%), and naevus (−37%). In the second wave (October 2020 to February 2021), the incidence of breast lump and rectal bleeding was increased (both +14%), and tiredness was decreased (−20%), with the majority of other symptoms being similar to pre-COVID levels. These data describe large-scale primary care avoidance that did not increase until the end of the first COVID year for many cancer-related symptoms, suggestive that substantial numbers of patients delayed presenting to primary care.

Abstract

Introduction: In the Netherlands, the onset of the coronavirus pandemic saw shifts in primary health service provision away from physical consultations, cancer-screening programs were temporarily halted, and government messaging focused on remaining at home. In March and April 2020, weekly cancer diagnoses decreased to 73% of their pre-COVID levels, and 39% for skin cancer. This study aims to explore the effect of the COVID pandemic on patient presentations for cancer-related symptoms in primary care in The Netherlands. Methods: Retrospective cohort study using routine clinical primary care data. Monthly incidences of patient presentations for cancer-related symptoms in five clinical databases in The Netherlands were analysed from March 2018 to February 2021. Results: Data demonstrated reductions in the incidence of cancer-related symptom presentations to primary care during the first COVID wave (March-June 2020) of −34% (95% CI: −43 to −23%) for all symptoms combined. In the second wave (October 2020–February 2021) there was no change in incidence observed (−8%, 95% CI −20% to 6%). Alarm-symptoms demonstrated decreases in incidence in the first wave with subsequent incidences that continued to rise in the second wave, such as: first wave: breast lump −17% (95% CI: −27 to −6%) and haematuria −15% (95% CI −24% to −6%); and second wave: rectal bleeding +14% (95% CI: 0 to 30%) and breast lump +14% (95% CI: 2 to 27%). Presentations of common non-alarm symptom such as tiredness and naevus demonstrated decreased in-cidences in the first wave of 45% (95% CI: −55% to −33%) and 37% (95% CI −47% to −25%). In the second wave, tiredness incidence was reduced by 20% (95% CI: −33% to −3%). Subgroup analy-sis did not demonstrate difference in incidence according to sex, age groups, comorbidity status, or previous history of cancer. Conclusions: These data describe large-scale primary care avoidance that did not increase until the end of the first COVID year for many cancer-related symptoms, suggestive that substantial numbers of patients delayed presenting to primary care. For those patients who had underlying cancer, this may have had impacted the cancer stage at diagnosis, treatment, and mortality.

Time intervals in the care pathway to cancer diagnosis during the COVID-19 pandemic: A large retrospective study from a high-volume center

Despite extensive research on cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic, evidence on the impact on prediagnostic time intervals is lacking. To better understand how COVID-19 changed the pathway to diagnosis of cancer, we examined the length of intervals from symptom onset to diagnosis for 13 common cancer types with known clinical stage over 1-year nonpandemic period (March 2019 to March 2020; N = 844) and three biannual COVID periods (March 2020 to September 2021; N = 1172). We analyzed the patient interval (from first symptoms to presentation to a physician), the primary care/emergency department interval (from presentation with relevant symptoms to a primary care or emergency department physician to referral to a hospital-based diagnosis center) and the hospital interval (from referral to diagnosis). Compared to nonpandemic data, there were significant changes across COVID periods. The pandemic mostly impacted patient intervals for cancers diagnosed over the first 6 months after onset in March 2020. Overall median patient intervals were longest in the early COVID period (39 [IQR 22-64] days) and shortest in the nonpandemic period (20 [IQR 13-30] days; Kruskal-Wallis test [χ² ], P < .0001). Differences in clinical stage between periods were relevant, with cancers from the mid-period (September 2020 to March 2021) showing the most advanced stage. A shift to later stage was plausibly a result of delayed intervals in the early COVID period. Since intervals are eventually relevant to prognosis, our results provide a baseline against which the impact of improvement strategies to minimize the negative outcomes of COVID-19-associated cancer delays can be assessed and implemented.

Primary care practice and cancer suspicion during the first three COVID-19 lockdowns in the UK: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly affected UK primary care, and as a result the route to cancer diagnosis for many patients.

AIM

To explore how the pandemic affected primary care practice, in particular cancer suspicion, referral, and diagnosis, and how this experience evolved as the pandemic progressed.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Seventeen qualitative interviews were carried out remotely with primary care staff.

METHOD

Staff from practices in England that expressed an interest in trialling an electronic safety-netting tool were invited to participate. Remote, semi-structured interviews were conducted from September 2020 to March 2021. Data analysis followed a thematic analysis and mind-mapping approach.

RESULTS

The first lockdown was described as providing time to make adjustments to allow remote and minimal-contact consultations but caused concerns over undetected cancers. These concerns were realised in summer and autumn 2020 as the participants began to see higher rates of late-stage cancer presentation. During the second and third lockdowns patients seemed more willing to consult. This combined with usual winter pressures, demands of the vaccine programme, and surging levels of COVID-19 meant that the third lockdown was the most difficult. New ways of working were seen as positive when they streamlined services but also unsafe if they prevented GPs from accessing all relevant information and resulted in delayed cancer diagnoses.

CONCLUSION

The post-pandemic recovery of cancer care is dependent on the recovery of primary care. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted and exacerbated vulnerabilities in primary care but has also provided new ways of working that may help the recovery.