Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
[Preprint]. 2022 Jul 25:2022.07.25.22278011.
doi: 10.1101/2022.07.25.22278011.

Health impacts of COVID-19 disruptions to primary cervical screening by time since last screen: A model-based analysis for current and future disruptions

Affiliations

Health impacts of COVID-19 disruptions to primary cervical screening by time since last screen: A model-based analysis for current and future disruptions

Emily A Burger et al. medRxiv. .

Update in

Abstract

Background: We evaluated how temporary disruptions to primary cervical cancer (CC) screening services may differentially impact women due to heterogeneity in their screening history and test modality.

Methods: We used three CC models to project the short- and long-term health impacts assuming an underlying primary screening frequency (i.e., 1, 3, 5, or 10 yearly) under three alternative COVID-19-related screening disruption scenarios (i.e., 1-, 2- or 5-year delay) versus no delay, in the context of both cytology-based and HPV-based screening.

Results: Models projected a relative increase in symptomatically-detected cancer cases during a 1-year delay period that was 38% higher (Policy1-Cervix), 80% higher (Harvard) and 170% higher (MISCAN-Cervix) for under-screened women whose last cytology screen was 5 years prior to the disruption period compared with guidelines-compliant women (i.e., last screen three years prior to disruption). Over a woman's lifetime, temporary COVID-19-related delays had less impact on lifetime risk of developing CC than screening frequency and test modality; however, CC risks increased disproportionately the longer time had elapsed since a woman's last screen at the time of the disruption. Excess risks for a given delay period were generally lower for HPV-based screeners than for cytology-based screeners.

Conclusions: Our independent models predicted that the main drivers of CC risk were screening frequency and screening modality, and the overall impact of disruptions from the pandemic on CC outcomes may be small. However, screening disruptions disproportionately affect under-screened women, underpinning the importance of reaching such women as a critical area of focus, regardless of temporary disruptions.

Funding: This study was supported by funding from the National Cancer Institute (U01CA199334). The contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the National Cancer Institute. Megan A Smith receives salary support from the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia (APP1159491) and Cancer Institute NSW (ECF181561). Matejka Rebolj is funded by Cancer Research UK (reference: C8162/A27047). James O'Mahony is funded by Ireland's Health Research Board (EIA2017054). Karen Canfell receives salary support from the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia (APP1194679). Emily A. Burger receives salary support from the Norwegian Cancer Society.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Karen Canfell is the co-PI of an investigator-initiated trial of CC screening, Compass, run by the VCS Foundation, which is a government-funded not-for-profit charity. Neither KC nor her institution have received funding from industry for this or any other research project. All other authors declare no conflicts. Emily A Burger receives salary support from the Norwegian Cancer Society (#198073), and Megan A Smith receives salary support from the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia (APP1159491) and Cancer Institute NSW (ECF181561). Matejka Rebolji: Public Health England provided funding for evaluation of various PHE projects; member of various PHE advisory groups for cervical screening; attended meetings with various HPV assay manufacturers; fee for lecture in the last four years from Hologic, paid to employer.

Figures

Figure A1.
Figure A1.
Schematic of short-term cancer burden calculations*
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Scenario overview reflecting the heterogeneity in screening history (aligned so that 2020 was 1, 3, 5, or 10 years since their last screen) facing alternative COVID-19 delay disruptions for three birth cohorts of women.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Short-term impacts: Relative rate ratio of cancer detected during the screening delay period for under-screeners compared with the same delay duration for guidelines-compliant screeners.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Long-term impacts: Projected impact of COVID-19-related disruptions to primary cervical cancer screening on the lifetime risk of developing cervical cancer (averaged across the 1965/1975/1985 birth cohorts of women) by time since last screen for cytology-based screening (top panels) and human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening (bottom panels) for three CISNET-Cervical disease simulation models.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Long-term impacts: Projected impact of COVID-19-related disruptions to primary cervical cancer screening on the incremental lifetime risk of developing cervical cancer (averaged across the 1965/1975/1985 birth cohorts of women) by time since last screen for cytology-based screening (top panels) and human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening (bottom panels) for three CISNET-Cervical disease simulation models.

Similar articles

References

    1. Fisher-Borne M, Isher-Witt J, Comstock S, Perkins RB. Understanding COVID-19 impact on cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening among federally qualified healthcare centers participating in “Back on track with screening” quality improvement projects. Prev Med. 2021;151:106681. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mast C, Munoz del Rio A. Delayed cancer screenings—a second look. Verona, WI: Epic Health Research Network; 2020. https://ehrn.org/articles/delayed-cancer-screenings-a-second-lookexternal Accessed February 5, 2021.
    1. Epic Research. “Troubling Cancer Screening Rates Still Seen Nearly Two Years Into the Pandemic.” Accessed May 5, 2022. Available at: https://epicresearch.org/articles/troubling-cancer-screening-rates-still... [
    1. Dillner J, Rebolj M, Birembaut P, Petry KU, Szarewski A, Munk C, et al. Long term predictive values of cytology and human papillomavirus testing in cervical cancer screening: joint European cohort study. BMJ. 2008;337:a1754. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Landy R, Sasieni PD, Mathews C, Wiggins CL, Robertson M, McDonald YJ, et al. Impact of screening on cervical cancer incidence: A population-based case–control study in the United States. International Journal of Cancer. 2020;147(3):887–96. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types