Impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on female breast, colorectal and non-small cell lung cancer incidence, stage and healthcare pathway to diagnosis during 2020 in Wales, UK, using a national cancer clinical record system.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 pandemic responses impacted behaviour and health services. We estimated the impact on incidence, stage and healthcare pathway to diagnosis for female breast, colorectal and non-small cell lung cancers at population level in Wales. METHODS: Cancer e-record and hospital admission data linkage identified adult cases, stage and healthcare pathway to diagnosis (population ~2.5 million). Using multivariate Poisson regressions, we compared 2019 and 2020 counts and estimated incidence rate ratios (IRR). RESULTS: Cases decreased 15.2% (n = -1011) overall. Female breast annual IRR was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.76-0.86, p < 0.001), colorectal 0.80 (95% CI: 0.79-0.81, p < 0.001) and non-small cell lung 0.91 (95% CI: 0.90-0.92, p < 0.001). Decreases were largest in 50-69 year olds for female breast and 80+ year olds for all cancers. Stage I female breast cancer declined 41.6%, but unknown stage increased 55.8%. Colorectal stages I-IV declined (range 26.6-29.9%), while unknown stage increased 803.6%. Colorectal Q2-2020 GP-urgent suspected cancer diagnoses decreased 50.0%, and 53.9% for non-small cell lung cancer. Annual screen-detected female breast and colorectal cancers fell 47.8% and 13.3%, respectively. Non-smal -cell lung cancer emergency presentation diagnoses increased 9.5% (Q2-2020) and 16.3% (Q3-2020). CONCLUSION: Significantly fewer cases of three common cancers were diagnosed in 2020. Detrimental impacts on outcomes varied between cancers. Ongoing surveillance with health service optimisation will be needed to mitigate impacts.

Investigation of the international comparability of population-based routine hospital data set derived comorbidity scores for patients with lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) identified significant international differences in lung cancer survival. Differing levels of comorbid disease across ICBP countries has been suggested as a potential explanation of this variation but, to date, no studies have quantified its impact. This study investigated whether comparable, robust comorbidity scores can be derived from the different routine population-based cancer data sets available in the ICBP jurisdictions and, if so, use them to quantify international variation in comorbidity and determine its influence on outcome. METHODS: Linked population-based lung cancer registry and hospital discharge data sets were acquired from nine ICBP jurisdictions in Australia, Canada, Norway and the UK providing a study population of 233 981 individuals. For each person in this cohort Charlson, Elixhauser and inpatient bed day Comorbidity Scores were derived relating to the 4-36 months prior to their lung cancer diagnosis. The scores were then compared to assess their validity and feasibility of use in international survival comparisons. RESULTS: It was feasible to generate the three comorbidity scores for each jurisdiction, which were found to have good content, face and concurrent validity. Predictive validity was limited and there was evidence that the reliability was questionable. CONCLUSION: The results presented here indicate that interjurisdictional comparability of recorded comorbidity was limited due to probable differences in coding and hospital admission practices in each area. Before the contribution of comorbidity on international differences in cancer survival can be investigated an internationally harmonised comorbidity index is required.

Impact of variation in cancer registration practice on observed international cancer survival differences between International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) jurisdictions.

BACKGROUND: International cancer survival comparisons use cancer registration data to report cancer survival, which informs the development of cancer policy and practice. Studies like the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) have a duty to understand how registration differences impact on survival prior to drawing conclusions. METHODS: Key informants reported differences in registration practice for capturing incidence date, death certificate case handling and registration of multiple primary tumours. Sensitivity analyses estimated their impact on one-year survival using baseline and supplementary cancer registration data from England and Sweden. RESULTS: Variations in registration practice accounted for up to a 7.3 percentage point difference between unadjusted (estimates from previous ICBP survival data) and adjusted (estimates recalculated accounting for registration differences) one-year survival, depending on tumour site and jurisdiction. One-year survival estimates for four jurisdictions were affected by adjustment: New South Wales, Norway, Ontario, Sweden. Sweden and Ontario's survival reduced after adjustment, yet they remained the jurisdictions with the highest survival for breast and ovarian cancer respectively. Sweden had the highest unadjusted lung cancer survival of 43.6% which was adjusted to 39.0% leaving Victoria and Manitoba with the highest estimate at 42.7%. For colorectal cancer, Victoria's highest survival of 85.1% remained unchanged after adjustment. CONCLUSION: Population-based cancer survival comparisons can be subject to registration biases that may impact the reported 'survival gap' between populations. Efforts should be made to apply consistent registration practices internationally. In the meantime, survival comparison studies should provide acknowledgement of or adjustment for the registration biases that may affect their conclusions.