Background Population-based cancer screening can reduce cancer burden but was interrupted temporarily due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We estimated the long-term clinical impact of breast and colorectal cancer screening interruptions in Canada using a validated mathematical model. Methods We used the OncoSim breast and colorectal cancers microsimulation models to explore scenarios of primary screening stops for 3, 6, and 12 months followed by 6–24-month transition periods of reduced screening volumes. For breast cancer, we estimated changes in cancer incidence over time, additional advanced-stage cases diagnosed, and excess cancer deaths in 2020–2029. For colorectal cancer, we estimated changes in cancer incidence over time, undiagnosed advanced adenomas and colorectal cancers in 2020, and lifetime excess cancer incidence and deaths. Results Our simulations projected a surge of cancer cases when screening resumes. For breast cancer screening, a three-month interruption could increase cases diagnosed at advanced stages (310 more) and cancer deaths (110 more) in 2020–2029. A six-month interruption could lead to 670 extra advanced cancers and 250 additional cancer deaths. For colorectal cancers, a six-month suspension of primary screening could increase cancer incidence by 2200 cases with 960 more cancer deaths over the lifetime. Longer interruptions, and reduced volumes when screening resumes, would further increase excess cancer deaths. Conclusions Interruptions in cancer screening will lead to additional cancer deaths, additional advanced cancers diagnosed, and a surge in demand for downstream resources when screening resumes. An effective strategy is needed to minimize potential harm to people who missed their screening.

Background Colorectal cancer screening programmes worldwide have been disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to estimate the impact of hypothetical disruptions to organised faecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening programmes on short-term and long-term colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in three countries using microsimulation modelling. Methods In this modelling study, we used four country-specific colorectal cancer microsimulation models-Policy1-Bowel (Australia), OncoSim (Canada), and ASCCA and MISCAN-Colon (the Netherlands)-to estimate the potential impact of COVID-19-related disruptions to screening on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands annually for the period 2020-24 and cumulatively for the period 2020-50. Modelled scenarios varied by duration of disruption (3, 6, and 12 months), decreases in screening participation after the period of disruption (0%, 25%, or 50% reduction), and catch-up screening strategies (within 6 months after the disruption period or all screening delayed by 6 months). Findings Without catch-up screening, our analysis predicted that colorectal cancer deaths among individuals aged 50 years and older, a 3-month disruption would result in 414-902 additional new colorectal cancer diagnoses (relative increase 0•1-0•2%) and 324-440 additional deaths (relative increase 0•2-0•3%) in the Netherlands, 1672 additional diagnoses (relative increase 0•3%) and 979 additional deaths (relative increase 0•5%) in Australia, and 1671 additional diagnoses (relative increase 0•2%) and 799 additional deaths (relative increase 0•3%) in Canada between 2020 and 2050, compared with undisrupted screening. A 6-month disruption would result in 803-1803 additional diagnoses (relative increase 0•2-0•4%) and 678-881 additional deaths (relative increase 0•4-0•6%) in the Netherlands, 3552 additional diagnoses (relative increase 0•6%) and 1961 additional deaths (relative increase 1•0%) in Australia, and 2844 additional diagnoses (relative increase 0•3%) and 1319 additional deaths (relative increase 0•4%) in Canada between 2020 and 2050, compared with undisrupted screening. A 12-month disruption would result in 1619-3615 additional diagnoses (relative increase 0•4-0•9%) and 1360-1762 additional deaths (relative increase 0•8-1•2%) in the Netherlands, 7140 additional diagnoses (relative increase 1•2%) and 3968 additional deaths (relative increase 2•0%) in Australia, and 5212 additional diagnoses (relative increase 0•6%) and 2366 additional deaths (relative increase 0•8%) in Canada between 2020 and 2050, compared with undisrupted screening. Providing immediate catch-up screening could minimise the impact of the disruption, restricting the relative increase in colorectal cancer incidence and deaths between 2020 and 2050 to less than 0•1% in all countries. A post-disruption decrease in participation could increase colorectal cancer incidence by 0•2-0•9% and deaths by 0•6-1•6% between 2020 and 2050, compared with undisrupted screening. Interp...

Background: Out-of-pocket costs pose a substantial economic burden to cancer patients and their families. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the literature on out-of-pocket costs of cancer care. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify studies that estimated the out-of-pocket cost burden faced by cancer patients and their caregivers. The average monthly out-of-pocket costs per patient were reported/estimated and converted to 2018 USD. Costs were reported as medical and non-medical costs and were reported across countries or country income levels by cancer site, where possible, and category. The out-of-pocket burden was estimated as the average proportion of income spent as non-reimbursable costs. Results: Among all cancers, adult patients and caregivers in the U.S. spent between USD 180 and USD 2600 per month, compared to USD 15–400 in Canada, USD 4–609 in Western Europe, and USD 58–438 in Australia. Patients with breast or colorectal cancer spent around USD 200 per month, while pediatric cancer patients spent USD 800. Patients spent USD 288 per month on cancer medications in the U.S. and USD 40 in other high-income countries (HICs). The average costs for medical consultations and in-hospital care were estimated between USD 40–71 in HICs. Cancer patients and caregivers spent 42% and 16% of their annual income on out-of-pocket expenses in low- and middle-income countries and HICs, respectively. Conclusions: We found evidence that cancer is associated with high out-of-pocket costs. Healthcare systems have an opportunity to improve the coverage of medical and non-medical costs for cancer patients to help alleviate this burden and ensure equitable access to care.

BackgroundScreening is an important part of preventive medicine. Ideally, screening tools identify patients early enough to provide treatment and avoid or reduce symptoms and other consequences, improving health outcomes of the population at a reasonable cost. Cost-effectiveness analyses combine the expected benefits and costs of interventions and can be used to assess the value of screening tools.ObjectiveThis review seeks to evaluate the latest cost-effectiveness analyses on screening tools to identify the current challenges encountered and potential methods to overcome them.MethodsA systematic literature search of EMBASE and MEDLINE identified cost-effectiveness analyses of screening tools published in 2017. Data extracted included the population, disease, screening tools, comparators, perspective, time horizon, discounting, and outcomes. Challenges and methodological suggestions were narratively synthesized.ResultsFour key categories were identified: screening pathways, pre-symptomatic disease, treatment outcomes, and non-health benefits. Not all studies included treatment outcomes; 15 studies (22%) did not include treatment following diagnosis. Quality-adjusted life years were used by 35 (51.4%) as the main outcome. Studies that undertook a societal perspective did not report non-health benefits and costs consistently. Two important challenges identified were (i) estimating the sojourn time, i.e., the time between when a patient can be identified by screening tests and when they would have been identified due to symptoms, and (ii) estimating the treatment effect and progression rates of patients identified early.ConclusionsTo capture all important costs and outcomes of a screening tool, screening pathways should be modeled including patient treatment. Also, false positive and false negative patients are likely to have important costs and consequences and should be included in the analysis. As these patients are difficult to identify in regular data sources, common treatment patterns should be used to determine how these patients are likely to be treated. It is important that assumptions are clearly indicated and that the consequences of these assumptions are tested in sensitivity analyses, particularly the assumptions of independence of consecutive tests and the level of patient and provider compliance to guidelines and sojourn times. As data is rarely available regarding the progression of undiagnosed patients, extrapolation from diagnosed patients may be necessary.