Abstract 31: Does Receipt of Resource-Adapted Guideline-Concordant Breast Cancer Care Improve Outcomes? A Retrospective Study of 517 Breast Cancer Patients in Southwest Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose: The NCCN Harmonized Guidelines for sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) provide evidence-based recommendations for standardized breast cancer (BC) care that are resource-appropriate, regionally developed and endorsed. This study aims to evaluate the proportion of BC patients receiving guideline concordant care in Southwest Nigeria, and their survival outcomes. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed of consecutive patients diagnosed with non-metastatic BC at Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospital, a public referral hospital in Ife, Nigeria. The NCCN Harmonized Guidelines for SSA - Breast Cancer, version 4.2021 were used to define concordant care, following the minimum practice standards for lower resource environments. Concordance was estimated with exact 95% confidence intervals. Overall survival (OS) was estimated with Kaplan Meier methods. Results: Between January 2016-December 2021, 517 patients were diagnosed with non-metastatic BC (stage I/II: n=101, 20%; stage III: n=416, 80%). Median age was 49y. Diagnostic work-up was guideline-concordant in 6.4% (n=33/517; 95%CI 4.4-8.8%). 98% (n=508/517) received a pre-treatment tissue diagnosis, 86% (n=373/435) completed an appropriate metastatic work-up, but only 18% (n=91/516) underwent breast imaging and 28% (n=142/517) had hormone receptor testing. Locoregional treatment concordance was 3.7% (n=19/517; 95% CI 2.2-5.7%) overall. 43.1% (n=223/517) of patients underwent surgery and 4.3% (n=22/517) received adjuvant radiation where indicated. 24% (n=122/517) received adjuvant chemotherapy. Guideline concordance was highest for neoadjuvant systemic treatment (55%, n=181/329; 95%CI 49-60%), followed by hormonal therapy where hormone receptor status was known (47%, n=24/51; 33-62%). Median follow-up was 17 months (IQR: 3-40). 3-year OS was 70% (59-84%) for stage I/II patients and 46% (40-53%) for stage III. Improved OS was seen across all major treatment categories for stage III patients who received guideline-concordant care compared to those who did not. Conclusion: Concordance with resource-adapted, regional practice guidelines for BC was low. Under-utilization of surgery, limited access to radiation and low rates of hormone receptor testing/therapy were key drivers of this finding. The association of concordant care with improved OS supports the utility of the guidelines & identifies areas where investments to strengthen care through guideline adherence could lead to better survival outcomes. Citation Format: Anna Dare, Olalekan Olasehinde, Matteo Di Bernardo, Funmiola Wuraola, Leye Omisore, Tosin Omoyiola, Israel Owoade, Mary Ogunyemi, Rivka Kahn, T Peter Kingham, Olusegun Alatise, Anya Romanoff. Does Receipt of Resource-Adapted Guideline-Concordant Breast Cancer Care Improve Outcomes? A Retrospective Study of 517 Breast Cancer Patients in Southwest Nigeria [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 11th Annual Symposium on Global Cancer Research; Closing the Research-to-Implementation Gap; 2023 Apr 4-6. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2023;32(6_Suppl):Abstract nr 31.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".