Dataset Information

Differences in breast cancer diagnosis by patient presentation in Ontario: a retrospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In Ontario, patients with breast cancer typically receive their diagnoses through the Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP) after an abnormal screen, through screening initiated by a primary care provider or other referring physician, or through follow-up of symptoms by patients' primary care providers. We sought to explore the association of the route to diagnosis (screening within or outside the OBSP or via symptomatic presentation) with use of OBSP-affiliated breast assessment sites (O-BAS), wait times until diagnosis or treatment, health care use and overall survival for patients with breast cancer.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, we used the Ontario Cancer Registry to identify adults (aged 18-105 yr) who received a diagnosis of breast cancer from 2013 to 2017. We excluded patients if they were not Ontario residents or had missing age or sex, or who died before diagnosis. We used logistic regression to evaluate factors associated with categorical variables (whether patients were or were not referred to an OBAS, whether patients were screened or symptomatic) and Cox proportional hazards regression to identify factors associated with all-cause mortality.

Results

Of 51 460 patients with breast cancer, 42 598 (83%) received their diagnoses at an O-BAS. Patients whose cancer was first detected through the OBSP were more likely than symptomatic patients to be given a diagnosis at an O-BAS (adjusted odds ratio 1.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.57 to 1.80). Patients screened by the OBSP were given their diagnoses 1 month earlier than symptomatic patients, but diagnosis at an O-BAS did not affect the time until either diagnosis or treatment. Patients referred to an O-BAS had significantly better overall survival than those who were not referred (adjusted hazard ratio 0.73, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.80).

Interpretation

Patients screened through the OBSP were given their diagnoses earlier than symptomatic patients and were more likely to be referred to an O-BAS, which was associated with better survival. Our findings suggest that individuals with signs and symptoms of breast cancer would benefit from similar referral processes, oversight and standards to those used by the OBSP.

SUBMITTER: Habbous S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9259434 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction: MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are small, non-coding RNA molecules involved in post-transcriptional gene regulation and have recently been shown to play a role in cancer metastasis. In solid tumors, especially breast cancer, alterations in miRNA expression contribute to cancer pathogenesis, including metastasis. Considering the emerging role of miRNAs in metastasis, the identification of predictive markers is necessary to further understanding of stage-specific breast cancer development. This is a retrospective analysis that aimed to identify molecular biomarkers related to distant breast cancer metastasis development. Methods: A retrospective case cohort study was performed in 64 breast cancer patients treated during the period from 1998-2001. The case group (n=29) consisted of patients with a poor prognosis who presented with breast cancer recurrence or metastasis during follow up. The control group (n=35) consisted of a random sample of patients with a good prognosis who did not develop breast cancer recurrence or metastasis. These patient groups were stratified according to TNM clinical stage (CS) I, II and III, and the main clinical features of the patients were homogeneous. miRNA profiling was performed using formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumors. Biomarkers related to metastatic potential were identified independent of clinical stage, and a cutoff point was selected based on the optimal sensitivity and specificity (ROC curve). Finally, a hazard risk analysis of these biomarkers was performed to evaluate their relation to metastatic potential. Results: miRNA expression profiling identified several miRNAs that were either specific and shared across all clinical stages (p?0.05). Among these, we identified miRNAs previously associated with cell motility (let-7 family), cell proliferation and invasion (hsa-miR-16 and has-miR-205) and distant metastasis (hsa-miR-21). In addition, hsa-miR-494 and hsa-miR-21 were up-regulated in metastatic cases of CSI and II. Furthermore, the combination of the 3 miRNAs identified for CSII (hsa-miR-494, hsa-miR-183 and hsa-miR-21) was significant and were a more effective risk marker compared to the single miRNAs. Conclusions: Women with metastatic breast cancer, especially CSII, presented up-regulated levels of miR-183, miR-494 and miR-21, which were associated with a poor prognosis. These miRNAs therefore represent new risk biomarkers of breast cancer metastasis and may be useful for future targeted therapies.

Project description:PurposeTo investigate factors associated with delays in presentation and diagnosis of women with confirmed breast cancer (BC).MethodsA cross-sectional study nested in an ongoing prospective cohort study of breast cancer patients at Dr Sardjito Hospital, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, was employed. Participants (n = 150) from the main study were recruited, with secondary information on demographic, clinical, and tumor variables collected from the study database. A questionnaire was used to gather data on other socioeconomic variables, herbal consumption, number of healthcare visits, knowledge-attitude-practice of BC, and open-ended questions relating to initial presentation. Presentation delay (time between initial symptom and first consultation) was defined as ≥3 months. Diagnosis delay was defined as ≥1 month between presentation and diagnosis confirmation. Impact on disease stage and determinants of both delays were examined. A Kruskal-Wallis test was used to assess the length and distribution of delays by disease stage. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to explore the association between delays, cancer stage and factors.ResultsSixty-five (43.3%) patients had a ≥3-month presentation delay and 97 (64.7%) had a diagnosis confirmation by ≥1 month. Both presentation and diagnosis delays increased the risk of being diagnosed with cancer stage III-IV (odds ratio/OR 2.21, 95% CI 0.97-5.01, p = 0.059 and OR 3.03, 95% CI 1.28-7.19, p = 0.012). Visit to providers ≤3 times was significantly attributed to a reduced diagnosis delay (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.06-0.37, p <0.001), while having a family history of cancer was significantly associated with increased diagnosis delay (OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.03-5.04, p = 0.042). The most frequent reasons for delaying presentation were lack of awareness of the cause of symptoms (41.5%), low perceived severity (27.7%) and fear of surgery intervention (26.2%).ConclusionsAlmost half of BC patients in our setting had a delay in presentation and 64.7% experienced a delay in diagnosis. These delays increased the likelihood of presentation with a more advanced stage of disease. Future research is required in Indonesia to explore the feasibility of evidence-based approaches to reducing delays at both levels, including educational interventions to increase awareness of BC symptoms and reducing existing complex and convoluted referral pathways for patients suspected of having cancer.

Project description:BACKGROUND:It is unclear whether alcohol consumption may impact survival after breast cancer diagnosis. To clarify the association between pretreatment alcohol consumption and survival in breast cancer patients, a prospective patient cohort study was conducted. METHODS:The cohort comprised 1,420 breast cancer patients diagnosed during 1997-2013 at a single institute in Japan. Alcohol drinking and other lifestyle factors were assessed by questionnaire survey at the initial admission. The patients were followed until December 31, 2016. The crude associations of pretreatment alcohol intake with survival were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) controlled by confounders. RESULTS:During a median follow-up period of 8.6 years, 261 all-cause and 193 breast cancer-specific deaths were documented. Survival curves showed that ever-drinkers tended to have better survival than never-drinkers (breast cancer-specific survival, log-rank p = 0.0381). Better survival was also observed for light drinkers with an intake of <5.0 g per day. In the Cox model, ever-drinking was associated with a decreased risk of all-cause (HR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.54-1.05) and breast cancer-specific death (HR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.46-0.99). Light drinkers had a lower risk of breast cancer-specific death (frequency of drinking, HR = 0.57 for occasional or 1-2 times per week and 0.72 for 3-7 times per week; amount of alcohol consumed per day, HR = 0.57 for <5.0 g and 0.68 for ?5.0 g compared with never-drinking). In terms of hormone receptor status, a significantly decreased risk of death associated with ever-drinking was observed among women with receptor-negative cancer (ER-/PR-, HR = 0.41; 95% CI: 0.20-0.84 for breast cancer-specific death). CONCLUSIONS:Pretreatment, i.e., pre-diagnosis alcohol consumption is unlikely to have an adverse effect on survival after breast cancer diagnosis. Light alcohol consumption may have a beneficial effect on patient survival.