2020
DOI: 10.17061/phrp3042026
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

How has COVID-19 impacted cancer screening? Adaptation of services and the future outlook in Australia

Abstract: Emerging evidence suggests the COVID-19 pandemic has, to some extent, disrupted the delivery and improvement of cancer screening programs, and thus delayed diagnoses, resulting in potential adverse morbidity and mortality • The extent of potential adverse effects is emerging. Rapid research into the effects will inform urgent responses and could also fast-track evidence for optimisation of cancer screening in Australia, with benefits during and after the pandemic response and recovery

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

4
43
0
2

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 47 publications
(51 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
(14 reference statements)
4
43
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…In Sweden, during the 1st wave of the COVID epidemic, cervical screening was largely cancelled, including the cancellation of 192 000 cervical screening appointments in Stockholm (42). Concordantly, a number of reports worldwide indicate a precipitous decline in cervical screening (43)(44)(45)(46)(47). The actual and potential consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic vis-à-vis increased cervical cancer incidence, treatment delay and mortality have been underscored (45,48,49).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In Sweden, during the 1st wave of the COVID epidemic, cervical screening was largely cancelled, including the cancellation of 192 000 cervical screening appointments in Stockholm (42). Concordantly, a number of reports worldwide indicate a precipitous decline in cervical screening (43)(44)(45)(46)(47). The actual and potential consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic vis-à-vis increased cervical cancer incidence, treatment delay and mortality have been underscored (45,48,49).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The actual and potential consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic vis-à-vis increased cervical cancer incidence, treatment delay and mortality have been underscored (45,48,49). Home self-sampling for HPV is widely endorsed as the key strategy to avoid these pandemic-related, adverse consequences (42,44,47,(50)(51)(52)(53). As succinctly stated in a previous study (50): 'The new imperatives of the COVID-19 pandemic support self-sampled HPV testing as the primary cervical screening method'.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…4 9 Examples have been described in Australia, where some programmes mailed kits to women at the request of their provider following a telehealth consultation. 10 The Ancona province is projected to transition to HPV testing in 2022, and thereafter from 3-year to 5-year screening intervals, eventually reducing contacts between clinicians and users. In this context, the use of remote technology coupled with self-sampling (probably mailed at the women's request for those who prefer this method to clinician-collected sampling) could increase uptake, while optimising resource allocation.…”
Section: What Additional Improvements Could Be Made?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nos Estados Unidos, Califórnia, um estudo de Miller et al (2021) revelou uma redução de 78% na taxa mensal de exames citopatológicos realizados por mulheres entre 21 e 29 anos e de 82% na taxa mensal de TMHPV com citologia, que são realizados em mulheres de 30 a 65 anos. Já na Austrália, Feletto et al (2020) observaram redução na taxa de rastreamento, mas não quantificaram grandes prejuízos devido à mudança do sistema de rastreamento para o TMHPV quinquenalmente, fazendo com que o impacto da pandemia fosse diminuído. Tranberg et al (2018), em estudo randomizado com 9791 mulheres, demonstra essa relação de maior adesão das pacientes quando o exame realizado é o TMHPV em relação ao exame citopatológico.…”
Section: Discussionunclassified