“Tell me I’m okay”: A cross-sectional quality-of-life assessment of patients in a breast cancer survivorship program.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
213 Background: The number of breast cancer survivors is increasing due to improvements in care and an aging population, leading to an increased need for care that addresses the physical and psychological needs of patients after completion of active treatment. The Sunnybrook Breast Cancer Survivorship Program was established to provide comprehensive evidence-based survivorship care and facilitate the transition to family doctors. Despite rising interest in dedicated survivorship care, there is little consensus regarding which individuals are likely to suffer the most long-term impacts of breast cancer treatment. Factors as varied as age, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and treatment type can influence Quality-of-Life (QoL) outcomes. This cross-sectional assessment uses mixed methods to evaluate QoL trends in the patient cohort. Methods: Current patients of the Sunnybrook Breast Cancer Survivorship Program were asked to complete a baseline information form, as well as the EORTC QLQ-30 and BR-45, two validated measures of QoL for breast cancer patients and survivors. QoL, functional, and symptom domains were calculated from these responses accordingly and analyzed statistically. Patients reported their most bothersome QoL concerns through an open-ended questionnaire, which was analyzed and organized thematically. 99 patients have been recruited to date, of a planned 200. Results: We find that sexual health is of importance for this population, with 50 (50.5%) participants reporting sexual activity. Patients under 50 have poorer sexual functioning scores (p<0.01) as well as more issues with body image (p<0.05) than older survivors. Both married and under-50 patients are significantly more likely to have poorer outlooks on the future (p<0.05; p<0.01). Younger patients also tended to have worse role functioning, cognitive functioning, emotional functioning, and social functioning scores, though these differences were not statistically significant. Thematic analysis of qualitative data showed that patients’ chief concerns were the impact that ongoing side effects had on their daily functioning, impact of treatment on body image, disruptions to work and personal relationships, and strong anxiety about potential recurrence. Conclusions: While it is understood that younger BC survivors face unique challenges, our findings indicate that these obstacles persist into older age groups. In addition to physical side effects, such concerns as body image issues, social strain, and emotional functioning can drive QoL scores for these patients. Notably, many patients endorsed strong anxiety regarding potential recurrence that affected QoL, and identified dedicated survivorship follow-up as an ameliorating factor. Further research should be conducted into the unique needs of under-50 survivors, as well as the role of recurrence anxiety in impacting QoL.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".