Opportunities to improve the environmental sustainability of breast cancer care: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common cancer affecting women and is second in female cancer-related mortality. The treatment of breast cancer is multidisciplinary; it involves multiple specialists and allied health professionals and thus can be resource intensive. The environmental impact of breast cancer care has been poorly defined. The aim of this scoping review was to characterize the environmental effects of multidisciplinary breast cancer care. METHODS: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process/ePubs, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched using terms related to breast cancer and environmental impact. The search strategy was run from inception to October 11, 2023, and updated on July 17, 2025. Peer-reviewed records that discussed the environmental impact of breast cancer care practices were included. RESULTS: The search identified 6772 articles from which 36 were included for review. We synthesized the literature discussing environmental effects of all aspects of breast cancer care, including screening, diagnosis, surgery, radiation, and systemic therapies. Key findings include the use of mobile breast screening clinics to reduce carbon footprint associated with travel, strategies for optimizing resource consumption in the operating room, and environmentally sustainable approaches for radiotherapy and breast cancer drug administration. CONCLUSION: This review summarizes the current literature discussing the environmental impact of breast cancer care. Findings from this review will identify gaps and inform recommendations for transforming our health care system into one that is sustainable and capable of offering gold standard patient-centred care to future generations of patients with breast cancer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".