LOCKDOWN as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic affected survival rates for the most aggressive cancers, a study has shown.
Patients diagnosed with gastric or oesophageal cancers were 13% less likely to receive curative treatment during the post-lockdown period according to the research from the University of Dundee.
Post-lockdown patients, on average, survived three months less than the pre-lockdown cohort which the scientists said is “very significant”.
Researchers claim it is one of the first studies to examine the survival impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic on cancer patients.
A study was carried out on 958 people with gastric and oesophageal cancer, looking at the clinical pathway for diagnosis, treatment and outcomes in the six months prior to and following lockdown.
Following lockdown, patients were more likely to present in poorer condition, in an emergency and with more advanced stage cancers, thus making them less likely to be suitable for treatment.
More patients received palliative care, rather than curative treatment, and poorer post-lockdown survival rates were recorded.
No post-lockdown issues were identified in the diagnostic and treatment pathway after patients were referred.
Professor Russell Petty, professor of medical oncology at Dundee University’s school of medicine, said: delays came in the initial presentation at patients’ GPs, but that this was not specifically investigated and is the subject of ongoing research.
“In many respects, the pandemic allowed us to undertake an investigation we would never have wanted to do, namely asking what the impact of delaying cancer presentation is,” he said. “We now have a clearer understanding of the importance of prompt diagnosis and the strongest evidence I have seen to date of the importance of ensuring timely cancer diagnosis and treatment. Our work starts to explain that delayed presentation of cancer patients to GPs as a key issue. This is topical given the current primary healthcare issues and cancer waiting times.
“Recent reports picked up on the fact that the absolute number of cancer deaths decreased in 2022 to suggest that the impact of the pandemic on cancer was perhaps less than might be imagined. This was a misrepresentation and for many cancer types it is too early to know the impact on survival in 2022.
“What our work shows is that with the less survivable cancer types like oesophageal and gastric cancer, where the impact would be expected to be seen quicker due to the natural course of the disease, then they are acting as an early warning signal.
“A true picture of how the pandemic impacted in more survivable cancer types will not be formed for some years yet.”
About 9000 new cases of oesophageal cancer are recorded in the UK each year, with a survival rate as low as 12% for men and 15% for women.
About 60% of people die within a year of being diagnosed with oesophageal cancer.
Kate Cunningham, campaign director of oesophageal cancer charity OCHRE, said: “This is an important and timely report and reflects our experience of what patients and their families are experiencing post pandemic.
“It is devastating to see that so many sufferers of this less survivable cancer have lost the chance to have life-extending treatment. Indeed, many have been diagnosed so late that palliation is their only option.
“For these people, their families and their loved ones, this is an absolute tragedy.
“While hard to read, we hope this report will bring about better awareness of symptoms and will encourage people to come forward in time for potentially curative treatment. Change is the least we can do for people diagnosed with this cancer of poor outcomes.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel