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.

The Burden of Health-Related Out-of-Pocket Cancer Costs in Canada: A Case-Control Study Using Linked Data.

BACKGROUND: The burden of out-of-pocket costs among cancer patients/survivors in Canada is not well understood. The objective of this study was to examine the health-related out-of-pocket cost burden experienced by households with a cancer patient/survivor compared to those without, examine the components of health-related costs and determine who experiences a greater burden. DATA AND METHODS: This study used a data linkage between the Survey of Household Spending and the Canadian Cancer Registry to identify households with a cancer patient/survivor (cases) and those without (controls). The out-of-pocket burden (out-of-pocket costs measured relative to household income) and mean costs were described and regression analyses examined the characteristics associated with the household out-of-pocket burden and annual out-of-pocket costs. RESULTS: The health-related out-of-pocket cost burden and annual costs measured in households with a cancer patient/survivor were 3.08% (95% CI: 2.55-3.62%) and CAD 1600 (95% CI: 1456-1759), respectively, compared to a burden of 2.84% (95% CI: 2.31-3.38) and annual costs of CAD 1511 (95% CI: 1377-1659) measured in control households, respectively. Households with a colorectal cancer patient/survivor had a significantly higher out-of-pocket burden compared to controls (mean difference: 1.0%, 95% CI: 0.18, 0.46). Among both cases and controls, the lowest income quintile households experienced the highest health-related out-of-pocket cost burden. INTERPRETATION: Within a universal health care system, it is still relevant to monitor health-related out-of-pocket spending that is not covered by existing insurance mechanisms; however, this is not routinely assessed in Canada. We demonstrate the feasibility of measuring such costs in households with a cancer patient/survivor using routinely collected data. While the burden and annual health-related out-of-pocket costs of households with a cancer patient/survivor were not significantly higher than control households in this study, the routine measurement of out-of-pocket costs in Canada could be systemized, providing a novel, system-level, equity-informed performance indicator, which is relevant for monitoring inequities in the burden of out-of-pocket costs.

Participatory simulation modeling to inform colorectal cancer screening in a complex remote northern health system: Canada's Northwest Territories.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality in the Northwest Territories (NWT), a northern region of Canada, could be reduced by implementing a CRC screening program. However, this may require additional colonoscopy resources. We used participatory simulation modeling to predict colonoscopy demand and to develop strategies for implementing a feasible and effective CRC screening program in this complex remote northern health system. METHODS: Using a participatory simulation modeling approach, we first developed a conceptual model of CRC screening with local collaborators. This approach informed our parameter adjustments of an existing microsimulation model, OncoSim-CRC, using data from a retrospective cohort review of CRC screening between 2014-2019 and secondary data. Model scenarios reflecting program implementation were run for 500 million cases. Validity was assessed, and outputs analyzed with collaborators. Alternative scenarios were developed to reduce colonoscopy demand and results were presented to end-users. RESULTS: We estimated that colonoscopy demand with a CRC screening program phased-in over 5 years would surpass capacity within 2 years. If demand is met, screen-detected cancers would increase by 110 %, and clinically-detected cases would reduce by 26 % over the next 30 years. We also found that prolonging the phase-in period, or revising adenoma follow-up guidelines would reduce colonoscopy demand while still improving cancer detection. Both strategies were considered feasible by collaborators. The adjusted model was valid, and the projections informed local end-users plans for CRC screening delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Using participatory simulation modeling, we projected that a screening program would improve CRC detection but surpass current colonoscopy capacity. Phasing-in the screening program and reducing endoscopic adenoma follow-up would enhance feasibility of a CRC screening program in the NWT and help maintain its effectiveness.

Clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of integrating smoking cessation into lung cancer screening: a microsimulation model.

BACKGROUND: Low-dose computed tomography (CT) screening can reduce lung cancer mortality in people at high risk; adding a smoking cessation intervention to screening could further improve screening program outcomes. This study aimed to assess the impact of adding a smoking cessation intervention to lung cancer screening on clinical outcomes, costs and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: Using the OncoSim-Lung mathematical microsimulation model, we compared the projected lifetime impact of a smoking cessation intervention (nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline and 12 wk of counselling) in the context of annual low-dose CT screening for lung cancer in people at high risk to lung cancer screening without a cessation intervention in Canada. The simulated population consisted of Canadians born in 1940-1974; lung cancer screening was offered to eligible people in 2020. In the base-case scenario, we assumed that the intervention would be offered to smokers up to 10 times; each intervention would achieve a 2.5% permanent quit rate. Sensitivity analyses varied key model inputs. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios with a lifetime horizon from the health system's perspective, discounted at 1.5% per year. Costs are in 2019 Canadian dollars. RESULTS: Offering a smoking cessation intervention in the context of lung cancer screening could lead to an additional 13% of smokers quitting smoking. It could potentially prevent 12 more lung cancers and save 200 more life-years for every 1000 smokers screened, at a cost of $22 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The results were most sensitive to quit rate. The intervention would cost over $50 000 per QALY gained with a permanent quit rate of less than 1.25% per attempt. INTERPRETATION: Adding a smoking cessation intervention to lung cancer screening is likely cost-effective. To optimize the benefits of lung cancer screening, health care providers should encourage participants who still smoke to quit smoking.