Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32702310›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Oncology2020

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer deaths due to delays in diagnosis in England, UK: a national, population-based, modelling study.

Camille Maringe, James Spicer, Melanie Morris, Arnie Purushotham, Ellen Nolte, Richard Sullivan, Bernard Rachet, Ajay Aggarwal

Erratum issuedOpen access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 970 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
970citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
129.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

970 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 1,847 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on breast cancer survivorship: a scoping review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

910 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Camille MaringeDepartment of Non-communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
James SpicerSchool of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, UK; Department of Oncology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Melanie MorrisDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Arnie PurushothamSchool of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, UK; Department of Oncology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Ellen NolteDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Richard SullivanSchool of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, UK; Institute of Cancer Policy, King's College London, London, UK; Department of Oncology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Bernard RachetDepartment of Non-communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Ajay AggarwalDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK; Institute of Cancer Policy, King's College London, London, UK; Department of Oncology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. Electronic address: ajay.aggarwal@lshtm.ac.uk.
King's College London · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 18525Cancer Research UK 29018
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSince a national lockdown was introduced across the UK in March, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer screening has been suspended, routine diagnostic work deferred, and only urgent symptomatic cases prioritised for diagnostic intervention. In this study, we estimated the impact of delays in diagnosis on cancer survival outcomes in four major tumour types.

methodsIn this national population-based modelling study, we used linked English National Health Service (NHS) cancer registration and hospital administrative datasets for patients aged 15-84 years, diagnosed with breast, colorectal, and oesophageal cancer between Jan 1, 2010, and Dec 31, 2010, with follow-up data until Dec 31, 2014, and diagnosed with lung cancer between Jan 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2012, with follow-up data until Dec 31, 2015. We use a routes-to-diagnosis framework to estimate the impact of diagnostic delays over a 12-month period from the commencement of physical distancing measures, on March 16, 2020, up to 1, 3, and 5 years after diagnosis. To model the subsequent impact of diagnostic delays on survival, we reallocated patients who were on screening and routine referral pathways to urgent and emergency pathways that are associated with more advanced stage of disease at diagnosis. We considered three reallocation scenarios representing the best to worst case scenarios and reflect actual changes in the diagnostic pathway being seen in the NHS, as of March 16, 2020, and estimated the impact on net survival at 1, 3, and 5 years after diagnosis to calculate the additional deaths that can be attributed to cancer, and the total years of life lost (YLLs) compared with pre-pandemic data.

findingsWe collected data for 32 583 patients with breast cancer, 24 975 with colorectal cancer, 6744 with oesophageal cancer, and 29 305 with lung cancer. Across the three different scenarios, compared with pre-pandemic figures, we estimate a 7·9-9·6% increase in the number of deaths due to breast cancer up to year 5 after diagnosis, corresponding to between 281 (95% CI 266-295) and 344 (329-358) additional deaths. For colorectal cancer, we estimate 1445 (1392-1591) to 1563 (1534-1592) additional deaths, a 15·3-16·6% increase; for lung cancer, 1235 (1220-1254) to 1372 (1343-1401) additional deaths, a 4·8-5·3% increase; and for oesophageal cancer, 330 (324-335) to 342 (336-348) additional deaths, 5·8-6·0% increase up to 5 years after diagnosis. For these four tumour types, these data correspond with 3291-3621 additional deaths across the scenarios within 5 years. The total additional YLLs across these cancers is estimated to be 59 204-63 229 years.

interpretationSubstantial increases in the number of avoidable cancer deaths in England are to be expected as a result of diagnostic delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. Urgent policy interventions are necessary, particularly the need to manage the backlog within routine diagnostic services to mitigate the expected impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with cancer.

fundingUK Research and Innovation Economic and Social Research Council.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBetacoronavirusBreast NeoplasmsColorectal NeoplasmsCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19EnglandEsophageal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID32702310
PMCPMC7417808
OpenAlexW3042226836

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.