Evaluation of the Association Between Sociodemographic Status and Breast Screening Volumes During the COVID-19 Pandemic in a Provincial,Population-Based Organized Breast Screening Program

Abstract

French

Objectives

We sought to evaluate the association between patient sociodemographic status and breast screening volumes (BSVs) during the COVID-19 pandemic in a large, population-based breast screening program that serves a provincial population of over 5 million. Methods: All patients who completed breast screening between April 1^st, 2017 and March 31^st, 2021 were eligible to participate. An average of 3 annual periods between April 1^st, 2017 and March 31^st, 2020 were defined as the pre-COVID period while the period between April 1^st, 2020 and March 31^st, 2021 was defined as the COVID-impacted period. The Postal Code^OM Conversion File Plus was applied to map patient residential postal codes to 2016 census standard geographical areas, which provided information on community size, income quintile and dissemination areas. Dissemination areas were subsequently linked to the Canadian Index of Multiple Deprivation (CIMD).

Results

Overall BSV was reduced by 23.0% during the COVID-impacted period as compared to the pre-COVID period. Percent reductions in BSVs were greatest among younger patients aged 40 to 49 years (31.3%) and patients residing in communities with a population of less than 10,000 (27.0%). Percent reduction in BSV was greatest among patients in the lowest income quintile (28.1%). Percent reductions in BSVs were greatest for patients in the most deprived quintiles across all 4 dimensions of the CIMD.

Conclusion

Disproportionate reductions in BSVs were observed during the COVID-19 pandemic among younger patients, patients residing in rural communities, patients in lower income quintiles, and patients in the most deprived quintiles across all 4 dimensions of the CIMD.

Visual Abstract

Keywords

breast screening COVID-19 health inequities

Introduction

Throughout the world the COVID-19 pandemic has widely disrupted healthcare systems, including participation in secondary preventative healthcare measures, such as breast screening. At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic organized breast screening programs were temporarily suspended or were put on hold following recommendations from several national organizations, including the American College of Radiology,¹ the Society of Breast Imaging,² and the Canadian Society of Breast Imaging.³ In the subsequent weeks of an initial phased re-opening, breast screening volumes were limited to allow for the implementation of recommendations to mitigate the spread of COVID-19.^4,5 Consequently, such COVID-19-related disruptions to breast screening limited patients’ ability to participate in this important secondary preventative healthcare measure.

The adverse impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on breast screening may be disproportionate. Variable participation in breast screening has been previously reported across various sociodemographic groups prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.^6

–9 Given the variable impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly on vulnerable populations,^10

–13 such inequities in breast screening may be further manifested. Initial reports suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic may have further manifested inequities in breast screening among patients of Black, Hispanic and Asian race,^10,14
–16 and among patients of lower socioeconomic status.¹⁷ Nonetheless, such reports are generally comprised of small, single-institution or insurance claims data.

We sought to evaluate the association between patient sociodemographic status and breast screening volumes during the COVID-19 pandemic in a large, population-based breast screening program that serves a provincial population of over 5 million. As secondary preventative healthcare measures, such as breast screening, remain integral to improved patient outcomes, evaluating the association of sociodemographic status on breast screening volumes during the COVID-19 pandemic is imperative to the development and deployment of targeted interventions to mitigate such identified inequities.¹⁸

Methods

This was an observational historical cohort study. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines¹⁹ were followed. The UBC-BC Cancer institutional research ethics board approved this study (REB H20-02086).

Breast Screening Program

In British Columbia, Canada a large, population-based breast screening program, the BC Cancer Breast Screening Program, serves a provincial population of over 5 million and provides breast screening to patients who meet pre-established eligibility criteria.²⁰ Thirty-nine screening sites, including 3 mobile units, provide screening mammography services across the province, and are operated by local health authorities and community radiology clinics. The BC Cancer Breast Screening Program is publicly funded.

COVID-19-Related Disruptions

As previously described, on March 18^th, 2020 all breast screening facilitated through the BC Cancer Breast Screening Program was suspended.²¹ After a suspension of approximately 10.5 weeks on May 30^th, 2020 breast screening sites throughout the province began a phased re-opening. This phased re-opening incorporated recommendations to mitigate the spread of COVID-19,⁵ including social distancing, enhanced equipment cleaning, use of personal protective equipment, and implementation of COVID-19 symptom screening.²¹

Data Sources and Cohort Derivation

The primary data source accessed was the population-based BC Cancer Breast Screening database, which contains patient, screen, and outcome information on all screening mammograms completed through the program. The database is regularly linked with the BC Vital Statistics death file to determine the vital status of patients eligible to participate in breast screening.

The study cohort consisted of all patients who completed breast screening between April 1^st, 2017 and March 31^st, 2021. An average of 3 consecutive annual periods between April 1^st, 2017 and March 31^st, 2020 was defined as the pre-COVID period to mitigate the effect of annual variation. The period between April 1^st, 2020 and March 31^st, 2021 was defined as the COVID-impacted period. Patients with missing, invalid, or non-British Columbia residential postal codes were excluded to facilitate geo-coding to area-based sociodemographic variables.

Study Parameters

Demographic variables extracted directly from the BC Cancer Breast Screening database included patient age, number of prior breast screens, regional health authority of residence, and residential postal code. Residential postal codes were utilized to impute sociodemographic variables. The Postal Code^OM Conversion File Plus (PCCF+)²² was applied to map residential postal codes to 2016 census standard geographical areas, which provided information on community size, income quintile and census dissemination areas. Dissemination areas were subsequently linked to the Canadian Index of Multiple Deprivation (CIMD).²³ The CIMD was developed to assign levels of deprivation to each census dissemination area across 4 key dimensions: ethnocultural composition, situational vulnerability, economic dependency, and residential instability. Seventeen variables contribute to these key dimensions (Table 1). As separate indices are available for national or provincial and regional levels, the index specific to British Columbia was selected.

Table 1.

Summary of Key Dimensions of the Canadian Index of Multiple Deprivation and Contributing Variables.

Key dimension	Contributing variables
Ethnocultural composition	Proportion of population who self-identify as a visible minority
	Proportion of population foreign-born
	Proportion of population with no knowledge of either official language
	Proportion of population who arrived within 5 years of census
Situational vulnerability	Proportion of population that identify as aboriginal
	Proportion of population 25 to 64 years without high school diploma
	Proportion of low-income population
	Proportion of single parent households
Economic dependency	Proportion of population participating in labor force
	Proportion of population 65 years or older
	Ratio of employment to population
	Dependency ratio
Residential instability	Proportion of apartment dwellings
	Proportion of population living alone
	Proportion of dwellings owned
	Proportion of population who moved dwellings in last 5 years

For each key dimension, factor scores for each dissemination area were constructed. Lower factor scores for each dissemination area corresponded to areas that were least marginalized while higher factor scores for each dissemination area corresponded to areas that were most marginalized. Factor scores were ordered from smallest to largest and were divided into quintiles, with quintile 1 being least deprived and quintile 5 being most deprived.

Statistical Analyses

Percent reductions in breast screening volumes during the COVID-impacted period were calculated and were compared to the pre-COVID period overall and for groups defined by sociodemographic variables.

Results

Overall breast screening volume was reduced by 23.0% during the COVID-impacted period with 197,015 breast screens completed during the COVID-impacted period as compared to 255,726 breast screens completed during the pre-COVID period. The percent reduction in breast screening volume during the COVID-impacted period was greatest among younger patients aged 40 to 49 years (31.3%) and least among patients aged 70 to 74 years (7.7%) (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Percent reduction in breast screening volume during the COVID-impacted period as compared to the pre-COVID period by patient age.

Patients who had not previously participated in breast screening had the greatest percent reduction in breast screening volume (40.2%). Breast screening volume was reduced by 23.3% among patients with 1 prior breast screen and by 20.7% among patients with 2 or more prior breast screens (Table 2). Percent reduction in breast screening volumes was greatest among patients residing in communities with a population less than 10,000 (27.0%) and among patients residing in communities with a population greater than 1,500,000 (26.2%) (Table 2). Patients residing in the Interior Health Authority had the greatest percent reduction in breast screening volume (30.1%) whereas patients residing in the Northern Health Authority had the lowest percent reduction in breast screening volume (11.4%) (Table 2).

Table 2.

Percent Reduction in Breast Screening Volumes During the COVID-Impacted Period as Compared to the Pre-COVID Period by Screen History, Community Size, and Regional Health Authority.

Variable	Group	Percent reduction in breast screening volume (%)
Number of prior breast screens	No prior breast screens	40.2
	1	23.3
	2 or more	20.7
Community size ^ϕ	Greater than 1,500,000	26.2
	100,000 to 499,999	15.8
	10,000 to 99,999	19.3
	Less than 10,000	27.0
Regional health authority	Fraser	26.4
	Interior	30.1
	Northern	11.4
	Vancouver Coastal	24.8
	Vancouver Island	10.3

Note: PCCF+ Postal Code^OM Conversion File Plus. ^ϕ The PCCF + maps residential postal codes to 2016 census standard geographical areas, which provided information on community size. The PCCF + maps the Lower Mainland to 1 geographical area. As such, no communities within British Columbia, Canada are denoted to be 500,000 to 1,499,999 in size.

Percent reductions in breast screening volumes during the COVID-impacted period as compared to the pre-COVID period varied with patient income quintile. The largest percent reduction in breast screening volume was among patients in the most deprived income quintile (28.1%). Percent reductions in breast screening volumes were less among patients in less deprived income quintiles (Figure 2). Similarly, percent reductions in breast screening volumes for groups defined by situational vulnerability and economic dependency dimensions of the CIMD increased monotonically with deprivation, with the most deprived quintiles showing the greatest percent reductions in breast screening volumes (Figure 3). A trend towards greater percent reductions in breast screening volumes with increased deprivation of the ethnocultural composition dimension was also observed, with the most deprived quintile experiencing a 28.1% reduction in breast screening volume. A relationship between reduction in breast screening volume and residential instability was not observed.

Figure 2.

Percent reduction in breast screening volume during the COVID-impacted period as compared to the pre-COVID period by income quintile. Lowest quintile corresponds to the most deprived income quintile and highest quintile corresponds to the least deprived income quintile.

Figure 3.

Percent reduction in breast screening volume during the COVID-impacted period as compared to the pre-COVID period by each dimension of the CIMD: ethnocultural composition (A), situational vulnerability (B), economic dependency (C), and residential instability (D). Lowest quintile corresponds to least deprivation for each dimension and highest quintile corresponds to greatest deprivation for each dimension.

Discussion

Overall breast screening volume was notably reduced during the COVID-impacted period as compared to the pre-COVID period in our large provincial, population-based breast screening program. Reductions in overall breast screening volumes during the COVID-19 pandemic have been previously variably reported.^10,17,24,25 An absolute deficit of approximately 3,900,000 breast screens across the United States has been previously estimated to be arising from reductions in breast screening volumes.¹⁷ Using insurance claims data provided by a large insurance provider, Song et al (2021) estimated an approximately 58% reduction in breast screening volume during the 20 weeks following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.²⁴ Such reductions in overall breast screening volumes have been generally attributed to the suspension of breast screening at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, with subsequent recovery of breast screening volumes being variable.^{10,17,21,24,25} While this study did not assess temporal variations in breast screening volumes throughout the COVID-impacted period, variations in breast screening volumes in our large provincial, population-based breast screening program throughout this period have been previously reported.²¹

We observed the greatest and least percent reductions in breast screening volumes during the COVID-impacted period among younger patients aged 40 to 49 years and older patients aged 70 to 74 years, respectively. In contrast to our observations, Sprague et al (2021) observed a greater reduction in breast screening volume and slower recovery in breast screening volume among patients aged 70 years or older during the COVID-19 pandemic,¹⁰ with similar observations also previously reported.¹⁷ At a single urban safety-net hospital in California, Velazquez et al (2021) observed a greater reduction in breast screening volume among patients aged 40 to 49 years during the period of time corresponding to the first local stay-at-home order and among patients aged 70 years or older during the second local stay-at-home order.¹⁵ The disproportionate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on younger patients with respect to increased workplace and childcare stressors and on older patients with respect to increased risk of poor health outcomes associated with COVID-19 infection may be potentially associated with these observations.

The least percent reduction in breast screening volume was observed among patients who had previously undergone 2 or more breast screens. The impact of number of prior breast screens on breast screening volumes during the COVID-19 pandemic has not been previously assessed. Appreciation of the importance of breast screening and habituation among patients who have previously undergone multiple breast screens may be suggested to be potentially associated with these observations and is concordant with pre-pandemic observations in the BC Cancer Breast Screening Program.²⁶ Previously, it has been hypothesized that an increased risk of breast cancer or family history of breast cancer may be associated with smaller reductions in breast screening volumes among patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nonetheless, Nyante et al (2021) and Sprague et al (2021) did not observe variations in breast screening volumes among patients with an increased risk of breast cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.^10,25 While Sprague et al (2021) did observe an increased likelihood of patients with dense breasts to defer breast screening during the COVID-19 pandemic, dense breasts being associated with patients of certain races was thought to underly these observations.¹⁰

Patients in rural communities may have encountered challenges in access to breast screening during the COVID-19 pandemic as we observed that the greatest percent reduction in breast screening volumes was among patients residing in communities with a population of less than 10,000. Using data from a large, state-wide non-profit healthcare system in Washington State, Amran et al (2021) similarly observed greater reductions in breast screening volumes among patients residing in rural communities as compared to urban communities during the COVID-19 pandemic.¹⁶ Variability in breast screening volumes among urban and suburban breast screening sites during the COVID-19 pandemic has also been reported, with an increased proportion of breast screening being completed at suburban breast screening sites as compared to urban breast screening sites.¹⁴ Likewise, we observed geographic regional variability in breast screening volumes among health authorities in British Columbia, Canada. Interestingly, though the Northern Health Authority is primarily comprised of rural communities, patients residing in communities in this health authority were observed to have the second lowest percent reduction in breast screening volumes though poor baseline breast screening volumes may explain in part these observations. Geographic regional variability in breast screening volumes was also observed by Chen et al (2021), who observed that percent reductions in breast screening volumes were variable in geographic regions within the United States.¹⁷ Chen et al (2021) also observed geographic regional variability in recovery of breast screening volumes, with various geographic regions within the United States having variable recovery in breast screening volumes suggested to be attributed to the temporality of COVID-19 infection in various geographic regions.¹⁷

This was the first study to assess the association between patient sociodemographic status and breast screening volumes during the COVID-19 pandemic in a large, population-based breast screening program. We observed the greatest percent reductions in breast screening volumes among patients in the lowest income quintile and among patients in quintiles which were most deprived across all 4 dimensions of the CIMD. These observations are dissimilar to that of Chen et al (2021) who observed that patients in the least deprived socioeconomic status quartiles had the greatest percent reductions in breast screening volumes during the COVID-19 pandemic.¹⁷ As a result of these reductions in breast screening volumes Chen et al (2021) observed comparable breast screening volumes among patients in the least deprived and most deprived socioeconomic status quartiles during the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic.¹⁷ Nonetheless, the use of data from a Medicare administrative claims database may have underestimated the impact of sociodemographic status on breast screening volumes during the COVID-19 pandemic.¹⁷

The association of patient-reported race, ethnicity, and country of birth on breast screening volumes was not able to be assessed from data collected directly from patients by our breast screening program. Although this information is requested from patients on a comprehensive intake form upon entry into the breast screening program, these sociodemographic variables were found to have a notable proportion of missing data. As such, we were only able to assess some of these sociodemographic dimensions through the CIMD. The impact of race on breast screening volumes during the COVID-19 pandemic has been previously reported in the United States. Disproportionate reductions in breast screening volumes^14
–16 and slower recovery in breast screening volumes¹⁰ among non-White patients during the COVID-19 pandemic have been previously reported. Such inequities during the COVID-19 pandemic were observed to impact not only breast screening volumes but also other radiological imaging.²⁷ Disproportionate socioeconomic impact associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, increased worry about the risk of COVID-19 infection, and systemic barriers within the healthcare system may potentially contribute to these observations.^10,15 Further research to understand and to develop and to deploy targeted interventions to mitigate such inequities in participation in breast screening are required.¹⁴

Reduced breast screening volumes during the COVID-19 pandemic may negatively impact early detection of breast cancer and may subsequently result in increased breast cancer deaths. A reduction in abnormal breast screens and referrals to tertiary provincial cancer centers arising from breast screening at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in our large provincial, population-based breast screening program was previously reported.²¹ Approximately 950 excessive breast cancer deaths in the United States between 2020 and 2030 are estimated to be attributed to delayed breast screening during the COVID-19 pandemic.²⁸ Further work from our group will aim to assess the impact of reduced breast screening volumes during the COVID-19 pandemic on the histopathological breast cancer and patient outcomes in the BC Cancer Breast Screening Program.

Unlike prior reports, which were generally comprised of small, single-institution or insurance claims data, our study included data from a large, population-based breast screening program that serves a provincial population of over 5 million. Moreover, dissimilar to prior reports we utilized an average of 3 annual periods as the baseline breast screening volume to limit the effect of annual variation. Our study was limited by the retrospective nature of our data. Use of residential postal codes to impute sociodemographic variables further did not allow for the use of individual patient-reported sociodemographic data. While our study assessed the impact of community size, we did not evaluate the impact of distance to closest breast screening site on breast screening volumes during the COVID-19 pandemic. As previously described, the impact of race, ethnicity, and country of birth on breast screening volumes during the COVID-19 pandemic could not be assessed. Moreover, our use of breast screening volumes only estimated participation in breast screening. As we calculated percent reductions in breast screening volumes during the COVID-19 pandemic as compared to baseline breast screening volumes, our data may underestimate the disproportionate association of patient sociodemographic status on participation in breast screening.

Conclusion

COVID-19 related disruptions resulted in a notable reduction in the overall breast screening volume in our large provincial, population-based breast screening program during the COVID-19 pandemic. We observed disproportionate reductions in breast screening volumes among younger patients, patients with fewer prior breast screens, and patients residing in rural communities. Moreover, we observed disproportionate reductions in breast screening volumes among patients in lower income quintiles and among patients in quintiles which were most deprived across all 4 dimensions of the CIMD. Identification of inequities in breast screening during the COVID-19 pandemic provides the opportunity to improve equitable participation in breast screening for vulnerable populations. Further research to understand and to develop and to deploy targeted interventions to mitigate disproportionate participation in breast screening are required.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research Grant (Grant # COV-2020-1048).

ORCID iDs

Charlotte J. Yong-Hing

Ryan R. Woods

References

American College of Radiology . ASBrS and ACR Joint Statement on Breast Screening Exams during the COVID-19 Pandemic. https://www.breastsurgeons.org/news/?id=45. Accessed May 4, 2022.

Society of Breast Imaging. SBI

Recommendations for a Thoughtful Return to Caring for Patients. https://www.sbi-online.org/Portals/0/Position/Statements/2020/SBI-recommendations-for-a-thoughtful-return-to-car-ing-for-patients_April-16-2020.pdf. Accessed November 2, 2020.

Seely

Scaranelo

Yong-Hing , et al. COVID-19: safe guidelines for breast imaging during the pandemic. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2020;71(4):459-469.

American College of Radiology . COVID-19 Pandemic Breast Cancer Consortium’s Considerations for Re-entry. https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/Clinical-Resources/COVID-BC-Reentry-Paper-May15_0100P_Clean.pdf. Accessed May 4, 2022.

British Columbia Ministry of Health . Provincial Guidance for Medical Imaging Services within British Columbia during the COVID-19 Pandemic Phases. http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Professionals-Site/Documents/COVID19_MedicalImagingGuidePractitioners.pdf. Accessed May 18, 2021.

Woods

McGrail

Kliewer

, et al. Breast screening participation and retention among immigrants and non-immigrants in British Columbia: a population-based study. Cancer Med. 2018;7:4044-4067.

Vahabi

Lofters

Kim

, et al. Breast cancer screening utilization among women from Muslim majority countries in Ontario, Canada. Prev Med. 2017;105:176-183.

Chan

Yun

Austin

, et al. Impact of socio-economic status on breast cancer screening in women with diabetes: a population-based study. Diabet Med. 2014;31:806-812.

Meshefedjian

Ouimet

M-J

Frigault

L-R

, et al. Association of material deprivation status, access to health care services, and lifestyle with screening and prevention of disease, Montreal, Canada, 2012. Prev Chronic Dis. 2016;13:160157.

10.

Sprague

Lowry

Miglioretti

, et al. Changes in mammography use by women’s characteristics during the first 5 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. JNCI: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021;113(9):1161-1167.

11.

Price-Haywood

Burton

Fort

Seoane

. Hospitalization and mortality among black patients and white patients with COVID-19. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(26):2534-2543.

12.

Vahidy

Nicolas

Meeks

, et al. Racial and ethnic disparities in SARS- CoV-2 pandemic: analysis of a COVID-19 observational registry for a diverse US metropolitan population. BMJ Open. 2020;10(8):e039849.

13.

Rentsch

Kidwai-Khan

Tate

, et al. Patterns of COVID-19 testing and mortality by race and ethnicity among United States veterans: a nationwide cohort study. PLoS Med. 2020;17(9):e1003379.

14.

Lehman

Mercaldo

Wang

, et al. Screening mammography recovery after COVID-19 pandemic-related closures: associations of facility access and racial and ethnic screening disparities. Am J Roentgenol. 2022;218(6):988-996.

15.

Velazquez

Hayward

Gregory

, et al. Trends in breast cancer screening in a safety-net hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(8):e2119929.

16.

Amram

Robison

Amiri

Pflugeisen

, et al. Socioeconomic and racial inequities in breast cancer screening during the COVID-19 pandemic in Washington state. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(5):e2110946.

17.

Chen

Haynes

, et al. Association of cancer screening deficit in the United States with the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7(6):878-884.

18.

Zhang

Rasali

Woods

Sam

. Area-based disparities in breast cancer screening participation in British Columbia. BC Medical Journal. 2020;62(7):248-249.

19.

Von Elm

Altman

Egger

, et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Bull World Health Organ. 2007;85:867-872.

20.

BC Cancer.

Who should get a mammogram?

http://www.bccancer.bc.ca/screening/breast/get-a-mammogram/who-should-get-a-mammogram. Accessed July 19, 2023.

21.

Bentley

Woods

Mar

, et al. Hindsight is 2020: understanding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on a provincial population-based breast screening program. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2022;73:589-591.

22.

Statistics

Canada.

Postal Code Conversion File Plus (PCCF+). https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/catalogue/82F0086X. Accessed February 9, 2022.

23.

Statistics

Canada.

The Canadian Index of Multiple Deprivation. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/45-20-0001/452000012019002-eng.html. Accessed February 9, 2022.

24.

Song

Bergman

Chen

, et al. Disruptions in preventive care: mammograms during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health Serv Res. 2021;56(1):95-101.

25.

Nyante

Benefield

Kuzmiak

, et al. Population-level impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on breast cancer screening and diagnostic procedures. Cancer. 2021;127(120):2111-2121.

26.

BC Cancer. BC Cancer

Breast Screening 2019 Program Results. http://www.bccancer.bc.ca/screening/Documents/Breast-Screening-Program-Report-2019.pdf. Accessed November 4, 2022.

27.

Lacson

Shi

Kapoor

, et al. Exacerbation of inequities in use of diagnostic radiology during the early stages of reopening after COVID-19. JACR. 2021;18(5):696-703.

28.

Alagoz

Lowry

Kurian

, et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on breast cancer mortality in the US: estimates from collaborative simulation modeling. JNCI: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021;113(11):1484-1494.