Impact of patient, tumour and treatment factors on psychosocial outcomes in invasive breast cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
568 Background: In breast cancer, clinicians aim to improve survival while patients value quality of life. We aim to delineate the impact of patient, tumour and treatment factors on psychosocial outcomes after treatment. Methods: A prospective cohort of women with unilateral stage I-III breast cancer were recruited at University Health Network in Toronto, Canada between 2014-2017. Validated questionnaires (BREAST-Q, Impact of Event, Hospital Anxiety & Depression Scales) were completed pre-operatively, and 6 and 12 months after surgery. Change in psychosocial scores over time by surgical procedure was assessed using linear mixed models, controlling for age, pathologic stage, hormone (HR) and HER2 receptor, and treatments. Predictors of psychosocial outcomes at 12 months were assessed using multivariable linear regression models. P values <.05 were significant. Results: 413 women underwent unilateral lumpectomy (48%), unilateral mastectomy (36%) and bilateral mastectomy (16%). Pathologic stage were: 18 ypT0/Tis (4%), 201 stage I (49%), 136 stage II (33%) and 58 stage III (14%). Receptor profiles were as follows: 277 HR+/HER2- (68%), 59 HR+/HER2+ (14%), 31 HR-/HER2+ (8%) and 39 HR-/HER2- (10%). Over time, women having unilateral lumpectomy had the highest scores of breast satisfaction ( P<.01), psychosocial ( P<.01) and sexual ( P<.01) well-being, with no difference between unilateral versus bilateral mastectomy groups. Age was inversely related with distress ( P <.01), psychosocial ( P <.01) and physical ( P =.001) well-being. Radiotherapy was associated with worse breast satisfaction (-8.1, P<.01), psychosocial (-6.9, P<.01) and physical (-5.8, P<.01) well-being, while chemotherapy was associated with worse sexual well-being (-5.5, P=.04). Endocrine therapy was associated with worse distress (6.7, P <.01), physical (-5.2, P <.01) and sexual (-6.4, P =.03) well-being. Women with a pathologic complete response had less anxiety compared to stage I (-2.0, P=.03). Women with triple-negative disease had worse breast satisfaction (-8.0, P=.03), distress (8.0, P =.01), anxiety (2.4, P <.01) and psychosocial (-7.5, P =.047) well-being than HR+/HER2- disease. In our regression model at 12 months, surgical procedure was a significant predictor of breast satisfaction ( P <.01), psychosocial ( P<.01), physical ( P<.01) and sexual ( P<.01) well-being. HER2 positivity predicted worse satisfaction ( P=.045), psychosocial ( P =.047), physical ( P =.02) and sexual ( P =.01) well-being. Income level ( P=.01) predicted breast satisfaction and physical well-being. Ethnicity (P <.01) and education level (P =.04) predicted distress scores. Conclusions: Psychosocial functioning after breast cancer is influenced by an interplay between patient, tumour and treatment factors. Delineating these influences identifies potentially modifiable factors with de-escalation therapy and enhancing psychosocial support.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".