Table 3.
Rate of follow-up tests required per restart strategy after a 6-month disruption compared to undisrupted screening, per 100,000 individuals per year (in %).
| Breast cancer | Cervical cancer | Colorectal cancer | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Undisrupted screening | No catch-upa | Everyone delayb | First rounds no delayc | Continue after stopping aged | Catch-up after stope | Undisrupted screening | No catch-upa | Everyone delayb | First rounds no delayc | Continue after stopping aged | Catch-up after stope | Undisrupted screening | No catch-upa | Everyone delayb | First rounds no delayc | Continue after stopping aged | Catch-up after stope | |
| 2020f | 247 | −50% | −45% | −44% | −44% | 8% | 196 | −50% | −51% | −42% | −51% | −13% | 447 | −35% | −36% | −32% | −34% | 1% |
| 2021 | 251 | 0% | 10% | 13% | 12% | 0% | 201 | 0% | −3% | 1% | −3% | 12% | 465 | 0% | −4% | −4% | 1% | 0% |
| 2022 | 248 | 19% | 6% | 6% | 8% | −6% | 163 | 0% | 13% | 14% | 13% | 0% | 463 | 7% | −2% | 1% | 3% | −1% |
| 2023 | 250 | 0% | 1% | 3% | 2% | −1% | 160 | 0% | −2% | −1% | −2% | 0% | 479 | −5% | −10% | −9% | −5% | 0% |
| 2024 | 248 | 3% | 0% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 162 | 0% | −3% | −1% | −3% | 0% | 484 | 2% | −3% | 0% | 2% | 0% |
| 2025 | 248 | 0% | 0% | 2% | 2% | 0% | 164 | 0% | −5% | 5% | −5% | −1% | 495 | −2% | −8% | −7% | −3% | 0% |
| 2026 | 245 | 1% | 0% | −1% | 2% | 0% | 166 | 0% | −4% | 1% | −3% | 0% | 506 | −1% | −4% | −2% | −1% | 0% |
| 2027 | 246 | 0% | −1% | 2% | 1% | 0% | 167 | 0% | −4% | −1% | −3% | 0% | 520 | 2% | −3% | −3% | 1% | 0% |
| 2028 | 243 | 1% | 0% | −1% | 2% | 1% | 170 | 0% | −4% | −2% | −4% | 0% | 526 | −1% | −6% | −4% | −1% | 0% |
| 2029 | 243 | 0% | −1% | 2% | 1% | 0% | 172 | 0% | −4% | −2% | −3% | 0% | 528 | 0% | −3% | −2% | 1% | 0% |
| 2030 | 242 | 0% | 0% | −1% | 1% | 1% | 175 | 1% | −4% | 5% | −3% | 0% | 538 | −1% | −6% | −3% | −2% | 0% |
aThe screening activity during the disruption period was cancelled and not caught up on.
bAll screening activity was postponed by the length of the disruption.
cAll screening activity was postponed by the length of the disruption, but not for individuals who reached the first screening age after 2020.
dAll screening activity was postponed by the length of the disruption and the stopping age is increased by the length of the disruption.
eThe disrupted screening activity was caught up immediately after the disruption at the same time as regular screening activity.
fBecause of the disruption, all screens in 2020 were performed in the second half of the year. Therefore, a capacity change of −50% in 2020 represented a normal screening capacity during the second half of 2020 and a capacity change of 0% in 2020 represented a double capacity during the second half of 2020.