Cervical cancer and COVID-an assessment of the initial effect of the pandemic and subsequent projection of impact for women in England: A cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To review the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the diagnosis of cervical cancer and model the impact on workload over the next 3 years. DESIGN: A retrospective, control, cohort study. SETTING: Six cancer centres in the North of England representing a combined population of 11.5 million. METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively for all diagnoses of cervical cancer during May-October 2019 (Pre-COVID cohort) and May-October 2020 (COVID cohort). Data were used to generate tools to forecast case numbers for the next 3 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Histology, stage, presentation, onset of symptoms, investigation and type of treatment. Patients with recurrent disease were excluded. RESULTS: 406 patients were registered across the study periods; 233 in 2019 and 173 in 2020, representing a 25.7% (n = 60) reduction in absolute numbers of diagnoses. This was accounted for by a reduction in the number of low stage cases (104 in 2019 to 77 in 2020). Adding these data to the additional cases associated with a temporary cessation in screening during the pandemic allowed development of forecasts, suggesting that over the next 3 years there would be 586, 228 and 105 extra cases of local, regional and distant disease, respectively, throughout England. Projection tools suggest that increasing surgical capacity by two or three cases per month per centre would eradicate this excess by 12 months and 7 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There is likely to be a significant increase in cervical cancer cases presenting over the next 3 years. Increased surgical capacity could mitigate this with little increase in morbidity or mortality. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Covid will result in 919 extra cases of cervical cancer in England alone. Effects can be mitigated by increasing surgical capacity.

Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity is negatively correlated with aortic diameter.

Cardiovascular events pose significant morbidity and mortality burden to abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) patients. Arterial stiffness as measured by pulse wave velocity (PWV) is an independent predictor of cardiovascular risk. We investigated the relationship between aortic diameter and PWV. Consecutive patients with AAA were invited to participate. Patients completed a health questionnaire, received aortic ultrasound and carotid-femoral PWV (cfPWV) recordings with a Vicorder. Thirty patients were used for reproducibility assessment. A linear regression model was used to identify significant predictors of cfPWV. Observer variation was assessed using Bland and Altman analysis and the intraclass correlation coefficient. Three hundred and nine patients were included-148 with AAA and 161 controls. The mean difference for repeated cfPWV between observers was 0.11 ms(-1). cfPWV was positively correlated with age (r=0.24, P<0.001) and systolic blood pressure (r=0.29, P<0.001) and negatively correlated with aortic diameter (r=-0.15, P=0.008). There was no difference in cfPWV between AAA and control groups (9.75±2.3 ms(-1) vs. 9.55±2.3 ms(-1), P=0.43). Aortic diameter (P=0.003) and systolic blood pressure (P<0.001) were significant predictors of cfPWV independent of age, aspirin usage and a history of myocardial infarction. Patients with large AAA (>5 cm) had decreased cfPWV compared with patients with small AAA (P=0.02) or normal diameter aorta (P=0.02). Vicorder measurements of cfPWV are repeatable. cfPWV is negatively associated with infra-renal aortic diameter and reduced in large AAA. cfPWV is likely invalid for accurate arterial stiffness assessment in patients with AAA owing to the apparent confounding effect of aortic size.

Pulse wave velocity and the non-invasive methods used to assess it: Complior, SphygmoCor, Arteriograph and Vicorder.

Pulse wave velocity (PWV) is a known indicator of arterial stiffness and cardiovascular risk. We critically evaluated the evidence supporting the four main non-invasive devices available to assess it: Complior, SphygmoCor, Arteriograph and Vicorder. PubMed and Medline databases (1960-2011) were searched to identify studies reporting carotid-femoral PWV in humans using one or more of the four devices. Of the 183 articles retrieved, 43 met inclusion criteria. The Arteriograph device demonstrated least variance but had poor agreement with the other devices. Undisputable reference values for PWV need to be established and internationally agreed, and a standardized method for superficial distance measurement generated to reduce variability. Further studies comparing all four devices with invasive assessment are necessary.