Abstract B020: Does surgical procedure influence psychosocial outcomes after treatment in women with ductal carcinoma in situ?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Objective: Rates of bilateral mastectomy are increasing in women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). We aim to characterize the trajectory of psychosocial outcomes after surgery in women with DCIS. Methods: We have been prospectively collecting psychosocial data on women receiving surgery for stage 0-III breast cancer at University Health Network in Toronto, Ontario, Canada since 2009. We queried our prospective database to identify all women receiving surgery for DCIS between May 2009 and January 2020. Women completed validated psychosocial questionnaires (e.g. BREAST-Q, Impact of Event Scale, Hospital Anxiety & Depression Scale) pre-operatively, and at 6 and 12 months following surgery. We analyzed the change in psychosocial scores between three surgical procedures (breast-conserving therapy, unilateral mastectomy and bilateral mastectomy) using linear mixed models, controlling for age and sociodemographic factors (e.g. ethnicity, education level, income and marital status). P values < .05 were significant. Results: 89 women with DCIS were identified, with a mean age of 52.4 ± 10.3 years. By surgical procedure, 7 women underwent breast-conserving therapy (8%), 46 underwent unilateral mastectomy (52%) and 36 underwent bilateral mastectomy (40%). Breast satisfaction (-8, P = .03) and sexual well-being (-10, P = .02) scores decreased over time but was not influenced by surgical procedure. Younger women had worse psychosocial well-being scores (-0.5/year, P = .02), with no impact of surgical procedure. There was a significant interaction between surgical procedure and time for chest physical well-being scores (P = .04); women having breast-conserving therapy had better chest physical well-being scores compared with both unilateral and bilateral mastectomy (with no difference between mastectomy groups). Unemployed women had worse chest physical well-being scores (-9, P = .04). There was a significant interaction between procedure and time for distress scores (P = .02); women having unilateral or bilateral mastectomy had higher distress scores before surgery but at 12 months, there was no difference between surgical procedures. Women with a higher annual income (≥80,000$) had higher breast satisfaction (+10, P = .03), psychosocial well-being (+14, P = .004), and sexual well-being (+12, P = .02), and lower distress (-12, P = .004 ) scores than women earning less than 80,000$ per year. There was a significant interaction (P = .01) between procedure and time for anxiety scores; while all surgical groups had mild anxiety scores at baseline, the anxiety scores for both unilateral and bilateral mastectomy groups improved to normal range over time while scores for women having breast-conserving therapy remained mild. Conclusions: Surgical procedure influences chest physical well-being, distress and anxiety scores in women with DCIS. Our data may help inform surgical decision-making for women with DCIS, and highlight a need for identifying women with high distress at diagnosis who may benefit from targeted psychosocial support. Citation Format: David W. Lim, Helene Retrouvey, Isabel Kerrebijn, Benita Hosseini, Anne C. O'Neill, Tulin D. Cil, Toni Zhong, Stefan O.P. Hofer, David R. McCready, Kelly A. Metcalfe. Does surgical procedure influence psychosocial outcomes after treatment in women with ductal carcinoma in situ? [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference on Rethinking DCIS: An Opportunity for Prevention?; 2022 Sep 8-11; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Can Prev Res 2022;15(12 Suppl_1): Abstract nr B020.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».