Abstract P4-03-09: Time points to diagnosis and treatment of invasive breast cancer in southwestern Ontario
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Delays in breast cancer diagnosis and treatment are associated with increased tumour size at presentation, higher incidence of lymph node metastasis, higher relapse rates and lower 5-year survival rates in some studies. Diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer is complex, involving many health care practitioners at multiple locations. New advances in diagnostic and prognostic indicators make the process ever more complex. We reviewed the timing of crucial events in breast cancer diagnosis and treatment in Southwestern Ontario. Methods: Two time periods (2001, 2011) were assessed. Patients with new early invasive breast cancer with specific TNM criteria (T1c or greater plus any N, or any T plus N1-3; M0) were included. Data collection and analysis explored significant time points from first suspicion of malignancy, to diagnosis and definitive treatment, as well as patient demographic information. Results: 300 and 451 eligible patients were identified in 2001 and 2011 cohorts. Distribution of T and N status by cohort was compared by Chi-square test and time from first suspicion to diagnosis by Wilcoxon testing. The proportion of patients in which the time from first suspicion (clinical by lay person or health professional or by imaging) to pathological diagnosis exceeded two months increased from 20.4% in 2001 to 42.1% in 2011. There were no differences in time from first suspicion to diagnosis when analyzed by age (p = 0.54) or location (p = 0.50). Pathological T2-4 status at diagnosis increased from 48.4% in 2001 to 56.8% in 2011, and N2-3 status increased from 7.3% to 12.6%. Patients who had mammograms increased from 52.7% to 59.4%. A positive or suspicious mammogram was the first sign in 36% and 39.1% of cases. There was a trend towards more pathological diagnoses and definitive surgeries at tertiary centers compared to community hospitals. Conclusions: There is a longer time interval from first suspicion of malignancy to pathological diagnosis in 2011 compared to 2001 for both urban and rural populations. The number of non-low risk, non-metastatic cancers at diagnosis increased by 50% over the time interval studied (300 v 451), but number of T2-T4 non-metastatic cancers increased by 77% (145 v 256) and N2,3 cancers by 136% (22 v 52). This is despite more patients receiving mammograms (52.7% v 59.4%). Delays in breast cancer treatment are multifactorial, including both system-, and patient-related factors. This is an under-researched area and more investigation is needed to understand the reasons for the diagnostic delays and more serious cancers at presentation in order to improve outcomes. Reasons for higher proportions of advanced cancers will be discussed. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2013;73(24 Suppl): Abstract nr P4-03-09.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».