Abstract PO1-10-08: Building awareness of triple negative breast cancer: Results from the Canadian Breast Cancer Network national survey
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: Assessing the education, information and support needs of Canadians diagnosed with breast cancer involves categorizing and tailoring topics and methods of delivery but, most importantly, it must be rooted in an understating of the patient. In 2022, the Canadian Breast Cancer Network (CBCN) initiated a project to identify the needs of the Canadian breast cancer population, determine differences between those diagnosed with triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) compared to non-TNBC patients and develop tailored, focused programs and materials as a result of the findings. Methods: CBCN conducted a series of 45-minute key informant interviews (7) with patients and oncologists to determine needs, gaps, programs, and materials for triple negative breast cancer patients in Canada. Five 90-minute patient focus groups (32 participants) were conducted to enhance the interviews. One group was specifically for metastatic patients. Findings from the interviews and focus groups were used to inform the questions for an online survey open to all Canadians diagnosed with breast cancer which was fielded May 1 to June 10, 2022. The data analysis began in September 2022 and is on-going. Results: While 47.9% of TNBC respondents (versus 51.3% of non-TNBC patients) said that they were aware of different types and subtypes of breast cancer, 70.6% of patients reported they were not aware of the term “triple-negative breast cancer” and only learned about at diagnosis. 69.9% of TNBC patients said that the person giving them their diagnosis used the term – triple-negative breast cancer. 54.5% reported being provided with specific details about their TNBC diagnosis. This included details about: the aggressive nature of TNBC (76.8%), treatments (67.6%), treatment goals (56.3%), and the urgency of beginning treatment (66.2%). TNBC patients reported that in retrospect, more information on clinical trials (41.7%), the long-term side effects of treatment (38.6%) and post-treatment follow-up (32.5%) should have been included in the discussion at diagnosis. Conclusions: Breast cancer is not a monolithic disease. TNBC impacts 10-20% of the breast cancer population. A majority of those diagnosed with TNBC in the survey were not even aware of this subtype. Building awareness of TNBC, its risk factors and different treatment needs in the public at large and among the breast cancer community could facilitate discussions with healthcare providers and assist researchers seeking new treatments and, most importantly, provide an informed voice for those with TNBC. Making the most current, evidence-based TNBC information and resources available to both patients and providers at diagnosis could build trust and understanding of the differences in treatment and follow up and instill confidence in the overall patient experience. Citation Format: Kathleen D. Swiger, Scott Richter, Bukun Adegbembo, Cathy Ammendolea. Building awareness of triple negative breast cancer: Results from the Canadian Breast Cancer Network national survey [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO1-10-08.
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 | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
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 ».