R WE ready for reimbursement? A round up of developments in real-world evidence relating to health technology assessment: part 15.

In this latest update we discuss real-world evidence (RWE) guidance from the leading oncology professional societies, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Society for Medical Oncology, and the PRINCIPLED practical guide on the design and analysis of causal RWE studies.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cardiovascular disease prevention and corresponding geographical inequalities in England: interrupted time series analysis.

BACKGROUND: There has been disruption to the detection and management of those with hypertension and atrial fibrillation (AF) during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is likely to vary geographically and could have implications for future mortality and morbidity. We aimed to estimate the change in diagnosed prevalence, treatment and prescription indicators for AF and hypertension and assess corresponding geographical inequalities. METHODS: Using the Quality and Outcomes Framework (2016/17 to 2021/22) and the English Prescribing Datasets (2018 to 2022), we described age standardised prevalence, treatment and prescription item rates for hypertension and AF by geography and over time. Using an interrupted time-series (ITS) analysis, we estimated the impact of the pandemic (from April 2020) on missed diagnoses and on the percentage change in medicines prescribed for these conditions. Finally, we described changes in treatment indicators against Public Health England 2029 cardiovascular risk targets. RESULTS: We observed 143,822 fewer (-143,822, 95%CI:-226,144, -61,500, p = 0.001) diagnoses of hypertension, 60,330 fewer (-60,330, 95%CI: -83,216, -37,444, p = 0.001) diagnoses of AF and 1.79% fewer (-1.79%, 95%CI: -2.37%, -1.22%), p < 0.0001) prescriptions for these conditions over the COVID-19 impact period. There was substantial variation across geography in England in terms of the indirect impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the diagnosis, prescription, and treatment rates of hypertension and AF. 20% of Sub Integrated Care Boards account for approximately 62% of all missed diagnoses of hypertension. The percentage of individuals who had their hypertension controlled fell from 75.8% in 2019/20 to 64.1% in 2021/22 and the percentage of individuals with AF who were risk assessed fell from 97.2% to 90.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Hypertension and AF detection and management were disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic. The disruption varied considerably across diseases and geography. This highlights the utility of administrative and geographically granular datasets to inform targeted efforts to mitigate the indirect impacts of the pandemic through applied secondary prevention measures.

audit_cc: A Stata command for the analysis of matched case-control audits of cervical cancer screening.

Background and objectives: Cervical screening programmes are crucial for the early diagnosis and prevention of cancer of the cervix. Regular auditing is vital for ensuring that these programmes achieve their full potential and meet their objectives in practice. Unfortunately, the time and skills required for the statistical analysis of the data collected are often important limiting factors. Comparisons across countries and over time have also been particularly difficult due to a lack of standardized definitions and methodology. We aimed to overcome these problems. Methods: Using the statistical software Stata, we developed a new command called audit_cc for the analysis of matched case-control audits of cervical cancer screening. Analyses are reported for two measures of screening history: time since last test and time since last negative test. Results: The command carries out the data manipulation which is required for the analysis and allows to save the resulting data set in an external file for further investigations. It promotes consistent evaluations of screening programmes over time and across studies and facilitates the creation of automatic publication-quality reports, which are especially useful in the context of routine audits. Conclusions: audit_cc is a valid tool that not only simplifies the analysis and reporting of cervical screening audits but also allows meaningful international comparisons. Although it is specific for cervical cancer, it can be seen as an example of how the standardisation of exposure definitions and key methodological issues can enable consistent and comparable evaluations of screening programmes across different countries and settings.

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

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. 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 human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening. 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 underscreened women whose last cytology screen was 5 years prior to the disruption period compared with guidelines-compliant women (i.e., last screen 3 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. 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 underscreened women, underpinning the importance of reaching such women as a critical area of focus, regardless of temporary disruptions.

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

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.

Benefit of Biennial Fecal Occult Blood Screening on Colorectal Cancer in England: A Population-Based Case-Control Study.

BACKGROUND: The English national bowel cancer screening program offering a guaiac fecal occult blood test began in July 2006. In randomized controlled trials of guaiac fecal occult blood test screening, reductions in mortality were accompanied by reductions in advanced stage colorectal cancer (CRC). We aimed to evaluate the effect of participation in the national bowel cancer screening program on stage-specific CRC incidence as a likely precursor of a mortality effect. METHODS: In this population-based case-control study, cases were individuals diagnosed with CRC aged 60-79 years between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2013. Two controls per case were matched on geographic region, gender, date of birth, and year of first screening invitation. Screening histories were extracted from the screening database. Conditional logistic regression with correction for self-selection bias was used to estimate odds ratios (odds ratios corrected for self-selection bias [cOR]) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) by Duke stage, sex, and age. RESULTS: 14 636 individuals with CRC and 29 036 without were eligible for analysis. The odds of CRC (any stage) were increased within 30 days of a screening test and decreased thereafter. No reduction in CRC (any stage) among screened individuals compared with those not screened was observed (cOR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.89 to 1.15). However, screened individuals had lower odds of Duke stage D CRC (cOR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.50 to 0.93). We estimate 435 fewer Duke D CRC by age 80 years in 100 000 people screened biennially between ages 60 and 74 years compared with an unscreened cohort. CONCLUSION: The impact of colorectal screening on advanced CRC incidence suggests that the program will meet its aim of reducing mortality.

COVID-19 disruption to cervical cancer screening in England.

INTRODUCTION: In England, routine invitations for cervical screening were reduced between April 2020 and June 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We quantify the impact of COVID-19 disruptions on attendance and excess diagnoses of cervical cancer (CC). METHODS: Using Public Health England CC screening data on laboratory samples received in 2018 as a baseline we quantify the reduction in screening attendances due to the COVID-19 pandemic between April 2020 and March 2021 for women aged 25-64. We model the impact on excess CC diagnoses assuming once invitations resume 87.5% of women attend within 12 months and 12.5% delay screening for 3 or 5 years (depending on age). RESULTS: The number of samples received at laboratories was 91% lower than expected during April, 85% during May and 43% during June 2020 compared to the same period in 2018. Although on average laboratories received 12.6% more samples between August 2020 and April 2021 than over the same months in 2018, by April 2021 there was a short fall of 200,949 samples (6.4% fewer than in 2018). An excess of 41 CC (4.0 per 100,000 women with a maximum screening delay of 12 months) are predicted to occur among the estimated 1,024,794 women attending this screening round with a delay. An excess of 60 CC (41.0 per 100,000 women) are predicted to occur among the estimated 146,391 women who do not attend this screening round. CONCLUSION: Prompt restoration of cervical screening services limited the impact on excess CC diagnoses. However, in 2020 a 6.4% shortfall of screening samples was observed. Every effort should be made to reassure these women that services are open and safe to attend.

Acceleration of cervical cancer diagnosis with human papillomavirus testing below age 30: Observational study.

Several international cervical screening guidelines advise against using high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) testing in women younger than 30. The rationale for this in young women, lies in the potential for additional detection of both low-grade and high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) leading to unnecessary treatments without reducing the burden of cervical cancer. We studied 56 544 women screened at 24 to 29 with HR-HPV testing and 116 858 screened with liquid-based cytology (LBC) in the English HPV screening pilot. They were compared to 528 460 women screened at the age of 30 to 49. We studied the detection of cervical cancer and CIN2/3 across two consecutive screening rounds 3 years apart. At 24 to 29, a positive HR-HPV test detected more cases of cervical cancer in the prevalence round than did a positive LBC test (1.36/1000 screened vs 0.82/1000, ORadj : 1.61, 95% CI: 1.18-2.19). In women with a negative HR-HPV test, cervical cancer was diagnosed before or at the incidence round in 0.07/1000. After a negative LBC test, cancer detection reached 0.47/1000 and 40% of these cases were diagnosed at FIGO stage IB+. HR-HPV testing increased the detection of CIN2/3 diagnoses in two consecutive rounds combined by 30% (71.9/1000 vs 55.2/1000). The patterns of detection of cervical cancer and CIN2/3 were almost identical at older ages. These data support using HR-HPV testing for screening of women younger than 30, which not only accelerates the diagnosis of cervical cancer but leads to a similar relative increase in CIN2/3 diagnosis to that found in women aged 30 to 49.

The effects of the national HPV vaccination programme in England, UK, on cervical cancer and grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia incidence: a register-based observational study.

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) immunisation with a bivalent vaccine (Cervarix) was introduced in England, UK, in Sept 1, 2008: routine vaccination was offered to girls aged 12-13 years with a catch-up programme for females aged 14-18 years in 2008-10. We quantified the early effect of this immunisation programme on cervical cancer and cervical carcinoma in situ, namely grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN3), registrations. METHODS: In this observational study, we used an extension of the age-period-cohort Poisson model to estimate the relative risk of cervical cancer in three vaccinated cohorts compared with earlier cohorts that were not eligible for HPV vaccination. Data from a population-based cancer registry were extracted on Jan 26, 2021, and were assessed for diagnoses of cervical cancer and CIN3 from Jan 1, 2006 to June 30, 2019 in women aged 20-64 years and who were a resident in England. We used three vaccinated cohorts to account for differences in the school year in which the vaccine was offered and its national coverage. Adjustment for confounding was made using information on changes in cervical screening policy and historical events that affected cervical cancer incidence. Results were compared across models with different adjustments for confounders. FINDINGS: We used data from a total of 13·7 million-years of follow-up of women aged 20 years to younger than 30 years. The estimated relative reduction in cervical cancer rates by age at vaccine offer were 34% (95% CI 25-41) for age 16-18 years (school year 12-13), 62% (52-71) for age 14-16 years (school year 10-11), and 87% (72-94) for age 12-13 years (school year 8), compared with the reference unvaccinated cohort. The corresponding risk reductions for CIN3 were 39% (95% CI 36-41) for those offered at age 16-18 years, 75% (72-77) for age 14-16 years, and 97% (96-98) for age 12-13 years. These results remained similar across models. We estimated that by June 30, 2019 there had been 448 (339-556) fewer than expected cervical cancers and 17 235 (15 919-18 552) fewer than expected cases of CIN3 in vaccinated cohorts in England. INTERPRETATION: We observed a substantial reduction in cervical cancer and incidence of CIN3 in young women after the introduction of the HPV immunisation programme in England, especially in individuals who were offered the vaccine at age 12-13 years. The HPV immunisation programme has successfully almost eliminated cervical cancer in women born since Sept 1, 1995. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Exposure Definition in Case-Control Studies of Cervical Cancer Screening: A Systematic Literature Review.

The first step in evaluating the effectiveness of cervical screening is defining exposure to screening. Our aim was to describe the spectrum of screening exposure definitions used in studies of the effectiveness of cervical screening. This systematic review included case-control studies in a population-based screening setting. Outcome was incidence of cervical cancer. Three electronic databases were searched from January 1, 2012 to December 6, 2018. Articles prior to 2012 were identified from a previous review. The qualitative synthesis focused on describing screening exposure definitions reported in the literature and the methodologic differences that could have an impact on the association between screening and cervical cancer. Forty-one case-control studies were included. Six screening exposure definitions were identified. Cervical cancer risk on average decreased by 66% when screening exposure was defined as ever tested, by 77% by time since last negative test, and by 79% after two or more previous tests. Methodologic differences included composition of the reference group and whether diagnostic and/or symptomatic tests were excluded from the analysis. Consensus guidelines to standardize exposure definitions are needed to ensure evaluations of cervical cancer screening can accurately measure the impact of transitioning from cytology to human papillomavirus-based screening and to allow comparisons between programs.

Cervical screening during the COVID-19 pandemic: optimising recovery strategies.

Disruptions to cancer screening services have been experienced in most settings as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ideally, programmes would resolve backlogs by temporarily expanding capacity; however, in practice, this is often not possible. We aim to inform the deliberations of decision makers in high-income settings regarding their cervical cancer screening policy response. We caution against performance measures that rely solely on restoring testing volumes to pre-pandemic levels because they will be less effective at mitigating excess cancer diagnoses than will targeted measures. These measures might exacerbate pre-existing inequalities in accessing cervical screening by disregarding the risk profile of the individuals attending. Modelling of cervical screening outcomes before and during the pandemic supports risk-based strategies as the most effective way for screening services to recover. The degree to which screening is organised will determine the feasibility of deploying some risk-based strategies, but implementation of age-based risk stratification should be universally feasible.

Impact of disruptions and recovery for established cervical screening programs across a range of high-income country program designs, using COVID-19 as an example: A modelled analysis.

COVID-19 has disrupted cervical screening in several countries, due to a range of policy-, health-service and participant-related factors. Using three well-established models of cervical cancer natural history adapted to simulate screening across four countries, we compared the impact of a range of standardised screening disruption scenarios in four countries that vary in their cervical cancer prevention programs. All scenarios assumed a 6- or 12-month disruption followed by a rapid catch-up of missed screens. Cervical screening disruptions could increase cervical cancer cases by up to 5-6%. In all settings, more than 60% of the excess cancer burden due to disruptions are likely to have occurred in women aged less than 50 years in 2020, including settings where women in their 30s have previously been offered HPV vaccination. Approximately 15-30% of cancers predicted to result from disruptions could be prevented by maintaining colposcopy and precancer treatment services during any disruption period. Disruptions to primary screening had greater adverse effects in situations where women due to attend for screening in 2020 had cytology (vs. HPV) as their previous primary test. Rapid catch-up would dramatically increase demand for HPV tests in 2021, which it may not be feasible to meet because of competing demands on the testing machines and reagents due to COVID tests. These findings can inform future prioritisation strategies for catch-up that balance potential constraints on resourcing with clinical need.

Impact of screening between the ages of 60 and 64 on cumulative rates of cervical cancer to age 84y by screening history at ages 50 to 59: A population-based case-control study.

There is little empirical data on the absolute benefit of cervical screening between ages 60-64y on subsequent cancer risk. We estimate the incidence of cervical cancer up to age 84y in women with and without a cervical cytology test at age 60-64y, by screening histories aged 50-59y. The current study is a population based case-control study of women born between 1928 and 1956 and aged 60-84y between 2007 and 2018. We included all such women diagnosed with cervical cancer in England and an aged-matched random sample without cancer. Women with a hysterectomy were excluded. Exposure was cervical cytology between ages 50-64y. The main outcome was 25y cumulative risk of cervical cancer between ages 60-84y. We found that eight in every 1000 (8.40, 95%CI: 7.78 to 9.07) women without a screening test between age 50-64y develop cervical cancer between the ages of 60-84y. The risk is half: 3.46 per 1000 (95%CI: 2.75 to 4.36) among women with a test between age 60-64y but no cervical screening test at age 50-59y. The absolute difference in risk is equivalent to one fewer cancer for every 202 such women screened. The highest risk (10.01, 95%CI:6.70 to 14.95) was among women with abnormal screening at ages 50-59y and no tests 60-64y. 25y risk among women with a screening test every five years between age 50-64y was just under two in a 1000 (1.59, 95%CI:1.42 to 1.78). Results suggest the upper age of screening should be dependent on previous screening participation and results.

Recovery strategies following COVID-19 disruption to cervical cancer screening and their impact on excess diagnoses.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted cervical cancer screening services. Assuming increases to screening capacity are unrealistic, we propose two recovery strategies: one extends the screening interval by 6 months for all and the other extends the interval by 36/60 months, but only for women who have already missed being screened. METHODS: Using routine statistics from England we estimate the number of women affected by delays to screening. We used published research to estimate the proportion of screening age women with high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and progression rates to cancer. Under two recovery scenarios, we estimate the impact of COVID-19 on cervical cancer over one screening cycle (3 years at ages 25-49 and 5 years at ages 50-64 years). The duration of disruption in both scenarios is 6 months. In the first scenario, 10.7 million women have their screening interval extended by 6 months. In the second, 1.5 million women (those due to be screened during the disruption) miss one screening cycle, but most women have no delay. RESULTS: Both scenarios result in similar numbers of excess cervical cancers: 630 vs. 632 (both 4.3 per 100,000 women in the population). However, the scenario in which some women miss one screening cycle creates inequalities-they would have much higher rates of excess cancer: 41.5 per 100,000 delayed for screened women compared to those with a 6-month delay (5.9 per 100,000). CONCLUSION: To ensure equity for those affected by COVID-19 related screening delays additional screening capacity will need to be paired with prioritising the screening of overdue women.

Technological advances: Have they improved standards? Review of outcomes from the Welsh cervical screening programme.

OBJECTIVES: Introduction of new technologies into cervical screening programmes has allowed more efficient programmes with less resources. We present an overview of screening technologies introduced into the Cervical Screening Wales programme and their evolution over time. METHODS: Data from the programme's statistical report were used to evaluate its performance over a 17-year period between 2001/02 and 2017/18. RESULTS: The introduction of liquid-based cytology has had a substantial impact on reducing inadequate sample rates and on increasing the positive predictive value of cytology. Inadequate rates have increased following the implementation of human papilloma virus testing as a triage test for cytology. Further knock-on effects on standard reporting ranges are expected following the introduction of human papilloma virus testing as the primary screening test. New performance standards have been introduced to better reflect the performance of the programme at a time when disease prevalence is expected to fall as women vaccinated against human papilloma virus reach screening age. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements to this cervical cancer screening programme as illustrated through performance indicator ranges suggest a major role played by technology.

Impact of changes to cervical screening guidelines on age and interval at which women are tested: Population-based study.

BACKGROUND: English cervical screening programme guidelines changed between 2009 and 2012. We explore the impact on the age and intervals at which women receive a cytology test. METHODS: Eligible women were controls from a population-based case-control study in England. Tests taken between 1980 and 2017 were extracted from the call/recall database. Using the Kaplan-Meier estimator by birth cohort and age at (or time since) last test, we explore proportions tested since or prior to a given age, years since previous test, and interval following a negative test. RESULTS: Screening histories from 46,037 women were included. Proportion tested by age 26 has increased from 55% among birth cohorts 1978-1979 to 67% among those born 1990-1991, despite more recent cohorts only having received one invitation (instead of two) prior to age 26. The proportion of women tested at aged 28 with a test three years earlier increased by 20% (from 36% in 1997-2006 to 56% in 2012-2017) whereas the proportion tested at ages 23-27 without a prior test increased from 34% to 80%. The age at last test prior to exiting the programme has decreased: among those born 1928-1931 86% had a test aged 60-65, but only 71% of those born 1947-1951. CONCLUSION: Clear programme guidance alongside quality assurance has improved the cervical screening programme by standardising the age and intervals at which women are screened.

Survival from Cervical Cancer Diagnosed Aged 20-29 Years by Age at First Invitation to Screening in England: Population-Based Study.

Age at which women are first invited to attend cervical screening in England has changed twice: in 2004, women under 25 years were no longer invited; and in 2012, first invitations were sent six months earlier (at age 24.5 years). Concomitantly, a dramatic increase in screen-detected cervical cancer was observed, and their survival had not been documented. Diagnoses of invasive cervical cancer at ages 20-29 years in 2006-2016 in England were followed until the end of 2018 for deaths. We estimated 8-year overall survival (OS) by International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage and age at first screening invitation. Overall and relative survival for stage IA cervical cancer for women diagnosed aged 20-29 years in England (n = 1905) was excellent at 99.8% (95% confidence intervals (CI): 99.4-99.9%) and 100% (95% CI: 99.7-100.1%), respectively. OS for stage IB cervical cancer (n = 1101) was 90.4% (95% CI: 88.3-92.2%). Survival from stage IB was worse for women diagnosed age 20-24 years compared to those diagnosed 25-29 years at diagnosis (p < 0.0001), but no difference was observed by age at first invitation for screening, p = 0.8575. OS for stage II (65.5%, 95% CI: 60.2-72.0%) and stage III+ (36.6%, 95% CI 28.4-44.7%) were poorer. Survival from stage I cervical cancer in young women in England is excellent: mortality in women with stage IA cancer is akin to that of the general population regardless of age at first invitation to screening.