Public Preferences for Genetic and Genomic Risk-Informed Chronic Disease Screening and Early Detection: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.

PURPOSE: Genetic and genomic testing can provide valuable information on individuals' risk of chronic diseases, presenting an opportunity for risk-tailored disease screening to improve early detection and health outcomes. The acceptability, uptake and effectiveness of such programmes is dependent on public preferences for the programme features. This study aims to conduct a systematic review of discrete choice experiments assessing preferences for genetic/genomic risk-tailored chronic disease screening. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, EconLit and Cochrane Library were searched in October 2023 for discrete choice experiment studies assessing preferences for genetic or genomic risk-tailored chronic disease screening. Eligible studies were double screened, extracted and synthesised through descriptive statistics and content analysis of themes. Bias was assessed using an existing quality checklist. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included. Most studies focused on cancer screening (n = 10) and explored preferences for testing of rare, high-risk variants (n = 10), largely within a targeted population (e.g. subgroups with family history of disease). Two studies explored preferences for the use of polygenic risk scores (PRS) at a population level. Twenty-six programme attributes were identified, with most significantly impacting preferences. Survival, test accuracy and screening impact were most frequently reported as most important. Depending on the clinical context and programme attributes and levels, estimated uptake of hypothetical programmes varied from no participation to almost full participation (97%). CONCLUSION: The uptake of potential programmes would strongly depend on specific programme features and the disease context. In particular, careful communication of potential survival benefits and likely genetic/genomic test accuracy might encourage uptake of genetic and genomic risk-tailored disease screening programmes. As the majority of the literature focused on high-risk variants and cancer screening, further research is required to understand preferences specific to PRS testing at a population level and targeted genomic testing for different disease contexts.

Global review of COVID-19 mitigation strategies and their impact on cancer service disruptions.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, countries adopted mitigation strategies to reduce disruptions to cancer services. We reviewed their implementation across health system functions and their impact on cancer diagnosis and care during the pandemic. A systematic search was performed using terms related to cancer and COVID-19. Included studies reported on individuals with cancer or cancer care services, focusing on strategies/programs aimed to reduce delays and disruptions. Extracted data were grouped into four functions (governance, financing, service delivery, and resource generation) and sub-functions of the health system performance assessment framework. We included 30 studies from 16 countries involving 192,233 patients with cancer. Multiple mitigation approaches were implemented, predominantly affecting sub-functions of service delivery to control COVID-19 infection via the suspension of non-urgent cancer care, modified treatment guidelines, and increased telemedicine use in routine cancer care delivery. Resource generation was mainly ensured through adequate workforce supply. However, less emphasis on monitoring or assessing the effectiveness and financing of these strategies was observed. Seventeen studies suggested improved service uptake after mitigation implementation, yet the resulting impact on cancer diagnosis and care has not been established. This review emphasizes the importance of developing effective mitigation strategies across all health system (sub)functions to minimize cancer care service disruptions during crises. Deficiencies were observed in health service delivery (to ensure equity), governance (to monitor and evaluate the implementation of mitigation strategies), and financing. In the wake of future emergencies, implementation research studies that include pre-prepared protocols will be essential to assess mitigation impact across cancer care services.

COVID-related disruptions to colorectal cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment could increase cancer Burden in Australia and Canada: A modelling study.

COVID-19 disrupted cancer control worldwide, impacting preventative screening, diagnoses, and treatment services. This modelling study estimates the impact of disruptions on colorectal cancer cases and deaths in Canada and Australia, informed by data on screening, diagnosis, and treatment procedures. Modelling was used to estimate short- and long-term effects on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, including ongoing impact of patient backlogs. A hypothetical mitigation strategy was simulated, with diagnostic and treatment capacities increased by 5% from 2022 to address backlogs. Colorectal cancer screening dropped by 40% in Canada and 6.3% in Australia in 2020. Significant decreases to diagnostic and treatment procedures were also observed in Australia and Canada, which were estimated to lead to additional patient wait times. These changes would lead to an estimated increase of 255 colorectal cancer cases and 1,820 colorectal cancer deaths in Canada and 234 cases and 1,186 deaths in Australia over 2020-2030; a 1.9% and 2.4% increase in mortality, respectively, vs a scenario with no screening disruption or diagnostic/treatment delays. Diagnostic and treatment capacity mitigation would avert 789 and 350 deaths in Canada and Australia, respectively. COVID-related disruptions had a significant impact on colorectal cancer screening, diagnostic, and treatment procedures in Canada and Australia. Modelling demonstrates that downstream effects on disease burden could be substantial. However, backlogs can be managed and deaths averted with even small increases to diagnostic and treatment capacity. Careful management of resources can improve patient outcomes after any temporary disruption, and these results can inform targeted approaches early detection of cancers.

Trends and projections of cause-specific premature mortality in Australia to 2044: a statistical modelling study.

Background: Long-term projections of premature mortality (defined as deaths age <75 years) help to inform decisions about public health priorities. This study aimed to project premature mortality rates in Australia to 2044, and to estimate numbers of deaths and potential years of life lost (PYLL) due to premature mortality overall and for 59 causes. Methods: We examined the past trends in premature mortality rates using Australian mortality data by sex, 5-year age group and 5-year calendar period up to 2019. Cigarette smoking exposure data (1945-2019) were included to project lung cancer mortality. Age-period-cohort or generalised linear models were developed and validated for each cause to project premature mortality rates to 2044. Findings: Over the 25-year period from 1990-1994 to 2015-2019, there was a 44.4% decrease in the overall age-standardised premature mortality rate. This decline is expected to continue, from 162.4 deaths/100,000 population in 2015-2019 to 141.7/100,000 in 2040-2044 (12.7% decrease). Despite declining rates, total numbers of premature deaths are projected to increase by 22.8%, rising from 272,815 deaths in 2015-2019 to 334,894 deaths in 2040-2044. This is expected to result in 1.58 million premature deaths over the 25-year period 2020-2044, accounting for 24.5 million PYLL. Of the high-level cause categories, cancer is projected to remain the most common cause of premature death in Australia by 2044, followed by cardiovascular disease, external causes (including injury, poisoning, and suicide), and respiratory diseases. Interpretation: Despite continuously declining overall premature mortality rates, the total number of premature deaths in Australia is projected to remain substantial, and cancer will continue to be the leading cause. These projections can inform the targeting of public health efforts and can serve as benchmarks against which to measure the impact of future interventions. They emphasise the ongoing importance of accelerating the prevention, early detection, and treatment of key health conditions. Funding: No funding was provided for this study.

Risk of COVID-19 death for people with a pre-existing cancer diagnosis prior to COVID-19-vaccination: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

While previous reviews found a positive association between pre-existing cancer diagnosis and COVID-19-related death, most early studies did not distinguish long-term cancer survivors from those recently diagnosed/treated, nor adjust for important confounders including age. We aimed to consolidate higher-quality evidence on risk of COVID-19-related death for people with recent/active cancer (compared to people without) in the pre-COVID-19-vaccination period. We searched the WHO COVID-19 Global Research Database (20 December 2021), and Medline and Embase (10 May 2023). We included studies adjusting for age and sex, and providing details of cancer status. Risk-of-bias assessment was based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Pooled adjusted odds or risk ratios (aORs, aRRs) or hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using generic inverse-variance random-effects models. Random-effects meta-regressions were used to assess associations between effect estimates and time since cancer diagnosis/treatment. Of 23 773 unique title/abstract records, 39 studies were eligible for inclusion (2 low, 17 moderate, 20 high risk of bias). Risk of COVID-19-related death was higher for people with active or recently diagnosed/treated cancer (general population: aOR = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.36-1.61, I2 = 0; people with COVID-19: aOR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.41-1.77, I2 = 0.58; inpatients with COVID-19: aOR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.34-2.06, I2 = 0.98). Risks were more elevated for lung (general population: aOR = 3.4, 95% CI: 2.4-4.7) and hematological cancers (general population: aOR = 2.13, 95% CI: 1.68-2.68, I2 = 0.43), and for metastatic cancers. Meta-regression suggested risk of COVID-19-related death decreased with time since diagnosis/treatment, for example, for any/solid cancers, fitted aOR = 1.55 (95% CI: 1.37-1.75) at 1 year and aOR = 0.98 (95% CI: 0.80-1.20) at 5 years post-cancer diagnosis/treatment. In conclusion, before COVID-19-vaccination, risk of COVID-19-related death was higher for people with recent cancer, with risk depending on cancer type and time since diagnosis/treatment.

Benefits and harms of prostate specific antigen testing according to Australian guidelines.

Guidelines for prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing in Australia recommend that men at average risk of prostate cancer who have been informed of the benefits and harms, and who decide to undergo regular testing, should be offered testing every 2 years from 50 to 69 years. This study aimed to estimate the benefits and harms of regular testing in this context. We constructed Policy1-Prostate, a discrete event microsimulation platform of the natural history of prostate cancer and prostate cancer survival, and PSA testing patterns and subsequent management in Australia. The model was calibrated to pre-PSA (before 1985) prostate cancer incidence and mortality and validated against incidence and mortality trends from 1985 to 2011 and international trials. The model predictions were concordant with trials and Australian observed incidence and mortality data from 1985 to 2011. Out of 1000 men who choose to test according to the guidelines, 36 [21-41] men will die from prostate cancer and 126 [119-133] men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer, compared with 50 [47-54] and 94 [90-98] men who do not test, respectively. During the 20 years of active PSA testing, 32.3% [25.6%-38.8%] of all PSA-test detected cancers are overdiagnosed cases that is, 30 [21-42] out of 94 [83-107] PSA-test detected cancers. Australian men choosing to test with PSA every two years from 50 to 69 will reduce their risk of ever dying from prostate cancer and incur a risk of overdiagnosis: for every man who avoids dying from prostate cancer, two will be overdiagnosed with prostate cancer between 50 and 69 years of age. Australian men, with health professionals, can use these results to inform decision-making about PSA testing.

Benefits and harms of cervical screening, triage and treatment strategies in women living with HIV.

To support a strategy to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem, the World Health Organisation (WHO) reviewed its guidelines for screening and treatment of cervical pre-cancerous lesions in 2021. Women living with HIV have 6-times the risk of cervical cancer compared to women in the general population, and we harnessed a model platform ('Policy1-Cervix-HIV') to evaluate the benefits and harms of a range of screening strategies for women living with HIV in Tanzania, a country with endemic HIV. Assuming 70% coverage, we found that 3-yearly primary HPV screening without triage would reduce age-standardised cervical cancer mortality rates by 72%, with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 38.7, to prevent a cervical cancer death. Triaging HPV positive women before treatment resulted in minimal loss of effectiveness and had more favorable NNTs (19.7-33.0). Screening using visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) or cytology was less effective than primary HPV and, in the case of VIA, generated a far higher NNT of 107.5. These findings support the WHO 2021 recommendation that women living with HIV are screened with primary HPV testing in a screen-triage-and-treat approach starting at 25 years, with regular screening every 3-5 years.

Benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness of cervical screening, triage and treatment strategies for women in the general population.

In 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) launched a strategy to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem. To support the strategy, the WHO published updated cervical screening guidelines in 2021. To inform this update, we used an established modeling platform, Policy1-Cervix, to evaluate the impact of seven primary screening scenarios across 78 low- and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) for the general population of women. Assuming 70% coverage, we found that primary human papillomavirus (HPV) screening approaches were the most effective and cost-effective, reducing cervical cancer age-standardized mortality rates by 63-67% when offered every 5 years. Strategies involving triaging women before treatment (with 16/18 genotyping, cytology, visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) or colposcopy) had close-to-similar effectiveness to HPV screening without triage and fewer pre-cancer treatments. Screening with VIA or cytology every 3 years was less effective and less cost-effective than HPV screening every 5 years. Furthermore, VIA generated more than double the number of pre-cancer treatments compared to HPV. In conclusion, primary HPV screening is the most effective, cost-effective and efficient cervical screening option in LMICs. These findings have directly informed WHO's updated cervical screening guidelines for the general population of women, which recommend primary HPV screening in a screen-and-treat or screen-triage-and-treat approach, starting from age 30 years with screening every 5 years or 10 years.

Fifty-year forecasts of daily smoking prevalence: can Australia reach 5% by 2030?

OBJECTIVE: To compare 50-year forecasts of Australian tobacco smoking rates in relation to trends in smoking initiation and cessation and in relation to a national target of ≤5% adult daily prevalence by 2030. METHODS: A compartmental model of Australian population daily smoking, calibrated to the observed smoking status of 229 523 participants aged 20-99 years in 26 surveys (1962-2016) by age, sex and birth year (1910-1996), estimated smoking prevalence to 2066 using Australian Bureau of Statistics 50-year population predictions. Prevalence forecasts were compared across scenarios in which smoking initiation and cessation trends from 2017 were continued, kept constant or reversed. RESULTS: At the end of the observation period in 2016, model-estimated daily smoking prevalence was 13.7% (90% equal-tailed interval (EI) 13.4%-14.0%). When smoking initiation and cessation rates were held constant, daily smoking prevalence reached 5.2% (90% EI 4.9%-5.5%) after 50 years, in 2066. When initiation and cessation rates continued their trajectory downwards and upwards, respectively, daily smoking prevalence reached 5% by 2039 (90% EI 2037-2041). The greatest progress towards the 5% goal came from eliminating initiation among younger cohorts, with the target met by 2037 (90% EI 2036-2038) in the most optimistic scenario. Conversely, if initiation and cessation rates reversed to 2007 levels, estimated prevalence was 9.1% (90% EI 8.8%-9.4%) in 2066. CONCLUSION: A 5% adult daily smoking prevalence target cannot be achieved by the year 2030 based on current trends. Urgent investment in concerted strategies that prevent smoking initiation and facilitate cessation is necessary to achieve 5% prevalence by 2030.

Exploring monitoring strategies for population surveillance of HPV vaccine impact using primary HPV screening.

Australia's cervical screening program transitioned from cytology to HPV-testing with genotyping for HPV16/18 in Dec'2017. We investigated whether program data could be used to monitor HPV vaccination program impact (commenced in 2007) on HPV16/18 prevalence and compared estimates with pre-vaccination benchmark prevalence. Pre-vaccination samples (2005-2008) (n = 1933; WHINURS), from 25 to 64-year-old women had been previously analysed with Linear Array (LA). Post-vaccination samples (2013-2014) (n = 2989; Compass pilot), from 25 to 64-year-old women, were analysed by cobas 4800 (cobas), and by LA for historical comparability. Age standardised pre-vaccination HPV16/18 prevalence was 4.85% (95%CI:3.81-5.89) by LA; post-vaccination estimates were 1.67% (95%CI:1.21-2.13%) by LA, 1.49% (95%CI:1.05-1.93%) by cobas, and 1.63% (95%CI:1.17-2.08%) for cobas and LA testing of non-16/18 cobas positives (cobas/LA). Age-standardised pre-vaccination oncogenic HPV prevalence was 15.70% (95%CI:13.79-17.60%) by LA; post-vaccination estimates were 9.06% (95%CI:8.02-10.09%) by LA, 8.47% (95%CI:7.47-9.47%) by cobas and cobas/LA. Standardised rate ratios between post-vs. pre-vaccination rates were significantly different for HPV16/18, non-16/18 HPV and oncogenic HPV: 0.34 (95%CI:0.23-0.50), 0.68 (95%CI:0.55-0.84) and 0.58 (95%CI:0.48-0.69), respectively. Additional strategies (LA for all cobas positives; combined cobas and LA results on all samples) had similar results. If a single method is applied consistently, it will provide important data on relative changes in HPV prevalence following vaccination.

Economic impact of using risk models for eligibility selection to the International lung screening Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Using risk models as eligibility criteria for lung screening can reduce race and sex-based disparities. We used data from the International Lung Screening Trial(ILST; NCT02871856) to compare the economic impact of using the PLCOm2012 risk model or the US Preventative Services' categorical age-smoking history-based criteria (USPSTF-2013). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of using PLCOm2012 versus USPSTF-2013 was evaluated with a decision analytic model based on the ILST and other screening trials. The primary outcomes were costs in 2020 International Dollars ($), quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and incremental net benefit (INB, in $ per QALY). Secondary outcomes were selection characteristics and cancer detection rates (CDR). RESULTS: Compared with the USPSTF-2013 criteria, the PLCOm2012 risk model resulted in $355 of cost savings per 0.2 QALYs gained (INB=$4294 at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $20 000/QALY (95 %CI: $4205-$4383). Using the risk model was more cost-effective in females at both a 1.5 % and 1.7 % 6-year risk threshold (INB=$6616 and $6112, respectively), compared with males ($5221 and $695). The PLCOm2012 model selected more females, more individuals with fewer years of formal education, and more people with other respiratory illnesses in the ILST. The CDR with the risk model was higher in females compared with the USPSTF-2013 criteria (Risk Ratio = 7.67, 95 % CI: 1.87-31.38). CONCLUSION: The PLCOm2012 model saved costs, increased QALYs and mitigated socioeconomic and sex-based disparities in access to screening.

Updated cost-effectiveness analysis of lung cancer screening for Australia, capturing differences in the health economic impact of NELSON and NLST outcomes.

BACKGROUND: A national, lung cancer screening programme is under consideration in Australia, and we assessed cost-effectiveness using updated data and assumptions. METHODS: We estimated the cost-effectiveness of lung screening by applying screening parameters and outcomes from either the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) or the NEderlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings ONderzoek (NELSON) to Australian data on lung cancer risk, mortality, health-system costs, and smoking trends using a deterministic, multi-cohort model. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for a lifetime horizon. RESULTS: The ICER for lung screening compared to usual care in the NELSON-based scenario was AU$39,250 (95% CI $18,150-108,300) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY); lower than the NLST-based estimate (ICER = $76,300, 95% CI $41,750-236,500). In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, lung screening was cost-effective in 15%/60% of NELSON-like simulations, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $30,000/$50,000 per QALY, respectively, compared to 0.5%/6.7% for the NLST. ICERs were most sensitive to assumptions regarding the screening-related lung cancer mortality benefit and duration of benefit over time. The cost of screening had a larger impact on ICERs than the cost of treatment, even after quadrupling the 2006-2016 healthcare costs of stage IV lung cancer. DISCUSSION: Lung screening could be cost-effective in Australia, contingent on translating trial-like lung cancer mortality benefits to the clinic.

The predicted effect and cost-effectiveness of tailoring colonoscopic surveillance according to mismatch repair gene in patients with Lynch syndrome.

PURPOSE: Lynch syndrome-related colorectal cancer (CRC) risk substantially varies by mismatch repair (MMR) gene. We evaluated the health impact and cost-effectiveness of MMR gene-tailored colonoscopic surveillance. METHODS: We first estimated sex- and MMR gene-specific cumulative lifetime risk of first CRC without colonoscopic surveillance using an optimization algorithm. Next, we harnessed these risk estimates in a microsimulation model, "Policy1-Lynch," and compared 126 colonoscopic surveillance strategies against no surveillance. RESULTS: The most cost-effective strategy was 3-yearly surveillance from age 25 to 70 years (pathogenic variants [path_] in MLH1 [path_MLH1], path_MSH2) with delayed surveillance for path_MSH6 (age 30-70 years) and path_PMS2 (age 35-70 years) heterozygotes (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = Australian dollars (A) $8,833/life-year saved). This strategy averted 60 CRC deaths (153 colonoscopies per death averted) over the lifetime of 1000 confirmed patients with Lynch syndrome (vs no surveillance). This also reduced colonoscopies by 5% without substantial change in health outcomes (vs nontailored 3-yearly surveillance from 25-70 years). Generally, starting surveillance at age 25 (vs 20) years was more cost-effective with minimal effect on life-years saved and starting 5 to 10 years later for path_MSH6 and path_PMS2 heterozygotes (vs path_MLH1 and path_MSH2) further improved cost-effectiveness. Surveillance end age (70/75/80 years) had a minor effect. Three-yearly surveillance strategies were more cost-effective (vs 1 or 2-yearly) but prevented 3 fewer CRC deaths. CONCLUSION: MMR gene-specific colonoscopic surveillance would be effective and cost-effective.

Health utilities for participants in a population-based sample who meet eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening.

INTRODUCTION: Trial-based, risk-targeted lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality but implementation may depend on favourable cost-effectiveness evaluations where quality-adjusted life-years are a key metric. Baseline health utility values for a screening population at high risk of lung cancer are not likely to match age-specific population norms, and utilities derived from screening trials may not be representative of real-world screening populations. We estimated utility values for screening-eligible individuals in a population-based cohort study in Australia. METHODS: Cancer-free participants aged 50-80 years in the New South Wales 45 and Up Study completed the 12-Item Short Form Survey (2010-2011). Mean SF-6D utility values were calculated for 19,991 participants and compared across screening criteria defined by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF-2021/2013), NELSON trial eligibility, and the PLCOm2012 risk tool. RESULTS: Mean SF-6D utility values were comparable across screening criteria: USPSTF-2021, 0.772 (95%CI, 0.768-0.776); USPSTF-2013, 0.764 (95%CI, 0.759-0.770); NELSON, 0.768 (95%CI, 0.763-0.774), and were each lower than among ineligible participants (0.810-0.814). While there was a decline in utilities with increasing risk of lung cancer as measured with the PLCOm2012 risk tool, mean utility values for those with ≥ 1.51% 6-year risk did not differ to other criteria (0.772, 95%CI, 0.767-0.776). CONCLUSION: Risk criteria are necessary for the efficiency of lung cancer screening programs, but they select populations with lower mean health utilities than population norms. We provide baseline values that can be used in cost-effectiveness evaluations of risk-targeted lung cancer screening.

Are patients with cancer at higher risk of COVID-19-related death? A systematic review and critical appraisal of the early evidence.

BACKGROUND: Early reports suggested that COVID-19 patients with cancer were at higher risk of COVID-19-related death. We conducted a systematic review with risk of bias assessment and synthesis of the early evidence on the risk of COVID-19-related death for COVID-19 patients with and without cancer. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched Medline/Embase/BioRxiv/MedRxiv/SSRN databases to 1 July 2020. We included cohort or case-control studies published in English that reported on the risk of dying after developing COVID-19 for people with a pre-existing diagnosis of any cancer, lung cancer, or haematological cancers. We assessed risk of bias using tools adapted from the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We used the generic inverse-variance random-effects method for meta-analysis. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated separately. Of 96 included studies, 54 had sufficient non-overlapping data to be included in meta-analyses (>500,000 people with COVID-19, >8000 with cancer; 52 studies of any cancer, three of lung and six of haematological cancers). All studies had high risk of bias. Accounting for at least age consistently led to lower estimated ORs and HRs for COVID-19-related death in cancer patients (e.g. any cancer versus no cancer; six studies, unadjusted OR=3.30,95%CI:2.59-4.20, adjusted OR=1.37,95%CI:1.16-1.61). Adjusted effect estimates were not reported for people with lung or haematological cancers. Of 18 studies that adjusted for at least age, 17 reported positive associations between pre-existing cancer diagnosis and COVID-19-related death (e.g. any cancer versus no cancer; nine studies, adjusted OR=1.66,95%CI:1.33-2.08; five studies, adjusted HR=1.19,95%CI:1.02-1.38). CONCLUSIONS: The initial evidence (published to 1 July 2020) on COVID-19-related death in people with cancer is characterised by multiple sources of bias and substantial overlap between data included in different studies. Pooled analyses of non-overlapping early data with adjustment for at least age indicated a significantly increased risk of COVID-19-related death for those with a pre-existing cancer diagnosis.

The risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 or developing COVID-19 for people with cancer: A systematic review of the early evidence.

BACKGROUND: The early COVID-19 literature suggested that people with cancer may be more likely to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 or develop COVID-19 than people without cancer, due to increased health services contact and/or immunocompromise. While some studies were criticised due to small patient numbers and methodological limitations, they created or reinforced concerns of clinicians and people with cancer. These risks are also important in COVID-19 vaccine prioritisation decisions. We performed a systematic review to critically assess and summarise the early literature. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a systematic search of Medline/Embase/BioRxiv/MedRxiv/SSRN databases including peer-reviewed journal articles, letters/commentaries, and non-peer-reviewed pre-print articles for 1 January-1 July 2020. The primary endpoints were diagnosis of COVID-19 and positive SARS-CoV-2 test. We assessed risk of bias using a tool adapted from the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Twelve studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. All four studies of COVID-19 incidence (including 24,181,727 individuals, 125,649 with pre-existing cancer) reported that people with cancer had higher COVID-19 incidence rates. Eight studies reported SARS-CoV-2 test positivity for > 472,000 individuals, 48,370 with pre-existing cancer. Seven of these studies comparing people with any and without cancer, were pooled using random effects [pooled odds ratio 0.91, 95 %CI: 0.57-1.47; unadjusted for age, sex, or comorbidities]. Two studies suggested people with active or haematological cancer had lower risk of a positive test. All 12 studies had high risk of bias; none included universal or random COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 testing. CONCLUSIONS: The early literature on susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 for people with cancer is characterised by pervasive biases and limited data. To provide high-quality evidence to inform decision-making, studies of risk of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 for people with cancer should control for other potential modifiers of infection risk, including age, sex, comorbidities, exposure to the virus, protective measures taken, and vaccination, in addition to stratifying analyses by cancer type, stage at diagnosis, and treatment received.

Cancer incidence and mortality in Australia from 2020 to 2044 and an exploratory analysis of the potential effect of treatment delays during the COVID-19 pandemic: a statistical modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Long-term projections of cancer incidence and mortality estimate the future burden of cancer in a population, and can be of great use in informing the planning of health services and the management of resources. We aimed to estimate incidence and mortality rates and numbers of new cases and deaths up until 2044 for all cancers combined and for 21 individual cancer types in Australia. We also illustrate the potential effect of treatment delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic on future colorectal cancer mortality rates. METHODS: In this statistical modelling study, cancer incidence and mortality rates in Australia from 2020 to 2044 were projected based on data up to 2017 and 2019, respectively. Cigarette smoking exposure (1945-2019), participation rates in the breast cancer screening programme (1996-2019), and prostate-specific antigen testing rates (1994-2020) were included where relevant. The baseline projection model using an age-period-cohort model or generalised linear model for each cancer type was selected based on model fit statistics and validation with pre-COVID-19 observed data. To assess the impact of treatment delays during the COVID-19 pandemic on colorectal cancer mortality, we obtained data on incidence, survival, prevalence, and cancer treatment for colorectal cancer from different authorities. The relative risks of death due to system-caused treatment delays were derived from a published systematic review. Numbers of excess colorectal cancer deaths were estimated using the relative risk of death per week of treatment delay and different durations of delay under a number of hypothetical scenarios. FINDINGS: Projections indicate that in the absence of the COVID-19 pandemic effects, the age-standardised incidence rate for all cancers combined for males would decline over 2020-44, and for females the incidence rate would be relatively stable in Australia. The mortality rates for all cancers combined for both males and females are expected to continuously decline during 2020-44. The total number of new cases are projected to increase by 47·4% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 35·2-61·3) for males, from 380 306 in 2015-19 to 560 744 (95% UI 514 244-613 356) in 2040-44, and by 54·4% (95% UI 40·2-70·5) for females, from 313 263 in 2015-19 to 483 527 (95% UI 439 069-534 090) in 2040-44. The number of cancer deaths are projected to increase by 36·4% (95% UI 15·3-63·9) for males, from 132 440 in 2015-19 to 180 663 (95% UI 152 719-217 126) in 2040-44, and by 36·6% (95% UI 15·8-64·1) for females, from 102 103 in 2015-19 to 139 482 (95% UI 118 186-167 527) in 2040-44, due to population ageing and growth. The example COVID-19 pandemic scenario of a 6-month health-care system disruption with 16-week treatment delays for colorectal cancer patients could result in 460 (95% UI 338-595) additional deaths and 437 (95% UI 314-570) deaths occurring earlier than expected in 2020-44. INTERPRETATION: These projections can inform health service planning for cancer care and treatment in Australia. Despite the continuous decline in cancer mortality rates, and the decline or plateau in incidence rates, our projections suggest an overall 51% increase in the number of new cancer cases and a 36% increase in the number of cancer deaths over the 25-year projection period. This means that continued efforts to increase screening uptake and to control risk factors, including smoking exposure, obesity, physical inactivity, alcohol use, and infections, must remain public health priorities. FUNDING: Partly funded by Cancer Council Australia.

Projections of smoking-related cancer mortality in Australia to 2044.

BACKGROUND: While many high-income countries including Australia have successfully implemented a range of tobacco control policies, smoking remains the leading preventable cause of cancer death in Australia. We have projected Australian mortality rates for cancer types, which have been shown to have an established relationship with cigarette smoking and estimated numbers of cancer deaths attributable to smoking to 2044. METHODS: Cancer types were grouped according to the proportion of cases currently caused by smoking: 8%-30% and >30%. For each group, an age-period- cohort model or generalised linear model with cigarette smoking exposure as a covariate was selected based on the model fit statistics and validation using observed data. The smoking-attributable fraction (SAF) was calculated for each smoking-related cancer using Australian smoking prevalence data and published relative risks. RESULTS: Despite the decreasing mortality rates projected for the period 2015-2019 to 2040-2044 for both men and women, the overall number of smoking-related cancer deaths is estimated to increase by 28.7% for men and 35.8% for women: from 138 707 (77 839 men and 60 868 women) in 2015-2019 to 182 819 (100 153 men and 82 666 women) in 2040-2044. Over the period 2020-2044, there will be 254 583 cancer deaths (173 943 men and 80 640 women) directly attributable to smoking, with lung, larynx, oesophagus and oral (comprising lip, oral cavity and pharynx) cancers having the largest SAFs. INTERPRETATION: Cigarette smoking will cause over 250 000 cancer deaths in Australia from 2020 to 2044. Continued efforts in tobacco control remain a public health priority, even in countries where smoking prevalence has substantially declined.

Tobacco smoking changes during the first pre-vaccination phases of the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Globally, tobacco smoking remains the largest preventable cause of premature death. The COVID-19 pandemic has forced nations to take unprecedented measures, including 'lockdowns' that might impact tobacco smoking behaviour. We performed a systematic review and meta-analyses to assess smoking behaviour changes during the early pre-vaccination phases of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Methods: We searched Medline/Embase/PsycINFO/BioRxiv/MedRxiv/SSRN databases (January-November 2020) for published and pre-print articles that reported specific smoking behaviour changes or intentions after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. We used random-effects models to pool prevalence ratios comparing the prevalence of smoking during and before the pandemic, and the prevalence of smoking behaviour changes during the pandemic. The PROSPERO registration number for this systematic review was CRD42020206383. Findings: 31 studies were included in meta-analyses, with smoking data for 269,164 participants across 24 countries. The proportion of people smoking during the pandemic was lower than that before, with a pooled prevalence ratio of 0·87 (95%CI:0·79-0·97). Among people who smoke, 21% (95%CI:14-30%) smoked less, 27% (95%CI:22-32%) smoked more, 50% (95%CI:41%-58%) had unchanged smoking and 4% (95%CI:1-9%) reported quitting smoking. Among people who did not smoke, 2% (95%CI:1-3%) started smoking during the pandemic. Heterogeneity was high in all meta-analyses and so the pooled estimates should be interpreted with caution (I2 >91% and p-heterogeneity<0·001). Almost all studies were at high risk of bias due to use of non-representative samples, non-response bias, and utilisation of non-validated questions. Interpretation: Smoking behaviour changes during the first phases of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 were highly mixed. Meta-analyses indicated that there was a relative reduction in overall smoking prevalence during the pandemic, while similar proportions of people who smoke smoked more or smoked less, although heterogeneity was high. Implementation of evidence-based tobacco control policies and programs, including tobacco cessation services, have an important role in ensuring that the COVID-19 pandemic does not exacerbate the smoking pandemic and associated adverse health outcomes. Funding: No specific funding was received for this study.

Changes in prostate cancer incidence, mortality and survival in relation to prostate specific antigen testing in New South Wales, Australia.

BACKGROUND: To examine changes in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates, and 5-year relative survival, in relation to changes in the rate of prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening tests and the use of radical prostatectomy (RP) in the Australian population. METHODS: Prostate cancer stage-specific incidence rates, 5-year relative survival and mortality rates were estimated using New South Wales Cancer Registry data. PSA screening test rates and RP/Incidence ratios were estimated from Medicare Benefits Schedule claims data. We used multiple imputation to impute stage for cases with "unknown" stage at diagnosis. Annual percentage changes (APC) in rates were estimated using Joinpoint regression. RESULTS: Trends in the age-standardized incidence rates for localized disease largely mirrored the trends in PSA screening test rates, with a substantial 'spike' in the rates occurring in 1994, followed by a second 'spike' in 2008, and then a significant decrease from 2008 to 2015 (APC -6.7, 95% CI -8.2, -5.1). Increasing trends in incidence rates were observed for regional stage from the early 2000s, while decreasing or stable trends were observed for distant stage since 1993. The overall RP/Incidence ratio increased from 1998 to 2003 (APC 9.6, 95% CI 3.8, 15.6), then remained relatively stable to 2015. The overall 5-year relative survival for prostate cancer increased from 58.4% (95% CI: 55.0-61.7%) in 1981-1985 to 91.3% (95% CI: 90.5-92.1%) in 2011-2015. Prostate cancer mortality rates decreased from 1990 onwards (1990-2006: APC -1.7, 95% CI -2.1, -1.2; 2006-2017: APC -3.8, 95% CI -4.4, -3.1). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there was a decrease in the incidence rate of localized prostate cancer after 2008, an increase in survival over time and a decrease in the mortality rate since the 1990s. This seems to indicate that the more conservative use of PSA screening tests in clinical practice since 2008 has not had a negative impact on population-wide prostate cancer outcomes.