Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39401037›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2024

Recovery From COVID-19-Related Disruptions in Cancer Detection.

Uriel Kim, Johnie Rose, Bryan T Carroll, Richard S Hoehn, Eric Chen, Jeremy S Bordeaux, Siran M Koroukian

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Assessment of Rebound in Cancer Diagnoses in California in 2022, by Stage, Sociodemographic Factors, and Rurality.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Uriel KimDepartment of Internal Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California.
Johnie RoseCase Comprehensive Cancer Center, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
Bryan T CarrollCase Comprehensive Cancer Center, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
Richard S HoehnCase Comprehensive Cancer Center, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
Eric ChenCase Comprehensive Cancer Center, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
Jeremy S BordeauxCase Comprehensive Cancer Center, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
Siran M KoroukianCase Comprehensive Cancer Center, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic impacted the timely diagnosis of cancer, which persisted as the second leading cause of death in the US throughout the pandemic. Objective: To evaluate the disruption and potential recovery in cancer detection during the first (2020) and second (2021) years of the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study involved an epidemiologic analysis of nationally representative, population-based cancer incidence data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. Included patients were diagnosed with incident cancer from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2021. The analysis was conducted in May 2024 using the April 2024 SEER data release, which includes incidence data through December 31, 2021. Exposures: Diagnosis of cancer during the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic (2020, 2021). Main Outcomes and Measures: Difference between the expected and observed cancer incidence in 2020 compared with 2021, with additional analyses by demographic subgroups (sex, race and ethnicity, and age group) and community (county-level) characteristics. Results: The analysis included 15 831 912 patients diagnosed with invasive cancer between 2000 and 2021, including 759 810 patients in 2020 and 825 645 in 2021. The median age was 65 years (IQR, 56-75 years), and 51.0% were male. The percentage difference between the expected and observed cancer incidence was -8.6% (95% CI, -9.1% to -8.1%) in 2020, with no significant difference in 2021 (-0.2%; 95% CI, -0.7% to 0.4%). These translated to a cumulative (2020-2021) deficit in observed vs expected cases of -127 931 (95% CI, -139 206 to -116 655). Subgroup analyses revealed that incidence rates remained substantially depressed from expected rates into 2021 for patients living in the most rural counties (-4.9%; 95% CI, -6.7% to -3.1%). The cancer sites with the largest cumulative deficit in observed vs expected cases included lung and bronchus (-24 940 cases; 95% CI, -28 936 to -20 944 cases), prostate (-14 104 cases; 95% CI, -27 472 to -736 cases), and melanoma (-10 274 cases; 95% CI, -12 825 to -7724 cases). Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study of nationally representative registry data found that cancer incidence recovered meaningfully in 2021 following substantial disruptions in 2020. However, incidence rates need to recover further to address the substantial number of patients with undiagnosed cancer during the pandemic.

Indexed as

COVID-19NeoplasmsSARS-CoV-2SEER ProgramAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansIncidenceMaleMiddle AgedPandemics

Identifiers

PMID39401037
PMCPMC11474412

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.