Predicted long‐term impact of COVID ‐19 pandemic‐related care delays on cancer mortality in Canada

  1. Talía Malagón
  2. Jean H. E. Yong
  3. Parker Tope
  4. Wilson H. Miller
  5. Eduardo L. Franco
  6. McGill Task Force on the Impact of COVID‐19 on Cancer Control and Care

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The COVID‐19 pandemic has affected cancer care worldwide. This study aimed to estimate the long‐term impacts of cancer care disruptions on cancer mortality in Canada using a microsimulation model. The model simulates cancer incidence and survival using cancer incidence, stage at diagnosis and survival data from the Canadian Cancer Registry. We modeled reported declines in cancer diagnoses and treatments recorded in provincial administrative datasets in March 2020 to June 2021. Based on the literature, we assumed that diagnostic and treatment delays lead to a 6% higher rate of cancer death per 4‐week delay. After June 2021, we assessed scenarios where cancer treatment capacity returned to prepandemic levels, or to 10% higher or lower than prepandemic levels. Results are the median predictions of 10 stochastic simulations. The model predicts that cancer care disruptions during the COVID‐19 pandemic could lead to 21 247 (2.0%) more cancer deaths in Canada in 2020 to 2030, assuming treatment capacity is recovered to 2019 prepandemic levels in 2021. This represents 355 172 life years lost expected due to pandemic‐related diagnostic and treatment delays. The largest number of expected excess cancer deaths was predicted for breast, lung and colorectal cancers, and in the provinces of Ontario, Québec and British Columbia. Diagnostic and treatment capacity in 2021 onward highly influenced the number of cancer deaths over the next decade. Cancer care disruptions during the COVID‐19 pandemic could lead to significant life loss; however, most of these could be mitigated by increasing diagnostic and treatment capacity in the short‐term to address the service backlog.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1002/ijc.33884
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.08.26.21261149: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.08.26.21261149v1 on medRxiv