Abstract P3-10-04: Prevalence of pain and barriers to pain management in breast cancer survivors in Vietnam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: Breast cancer-related pain significantly affects quality of life and is well-documented in developed countries. However, little is known about the extent of breast cancer-related pain in developing countries. A study at the National Cancer Institute of Vietnam reported that 44% of breast cancer patients experienced moderate to severe pain. However, this study did not include breast cancer survivors, and little is known about the prevalence of pain and its management in this patient population. Objectives: Determine the prevalence of pain, adequacy of pain management, and barriers to care in breast cancer survivors in Vietnam. Methods: We administered previously validated and published symptom assessment tools (the BPI and MDASI) to 160 unselected Vietnamese women diagnosed and treated for breast cancer in 2007. Here we present a preliminary description of the results for the first 40 breast cancer survivors enrolled in this study. Results: The most frequently reported symptoms were pain (62.5%, with 40% reporting the pain as severe), memory loss (50%), numbness/tingling (50%), sleep disturbance (45%), and appetite loss (32.5%). Only 23% reported adequate symptom management, with the costs of treatment and the false belief that no treatments existed for the pain being frequently cited as barriers to care. Discussion: Cancer-related pain is highly prevalent in breast cancer survivors treated at the largest cancer hospital in Vietnam. The majority of patients report inadequate management of pain, often attributable to costs and false beliefs regarding pain management. Initiatives aimed at patient education and improving accessibility to pain management could significantly improve the quality of life in this patient population. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2013;73(24 Suppl): Abstract nr P3-10-04.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".