Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31439436›Full record

ArticleClinical breast cancer2020

Timeliness of Treatment Initiation in Newly Diagnosed Patients With Breast Cancer.

Jinghui Dong, Kimberly S Esham, Lauren Boehm, Sabrina A Karim, Mingqian Lin, Daqin Mao, Fengqing Wang, Daniel Fein, Hanyin Wang, Christine Studenmund and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical breast cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Jinghui DongInstitute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA.
Kimberly S EshamInstitute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA; Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA; Division of Hematology/Oncology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA.
Lauren BoehmInstitute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA.
Sabrina A KarimInstitute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA.
Mingqian LinInstitute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA.
Daqin MaoInstitute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA.
Fengqing WangInstitute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA.
Daniel FeinDepartment of Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA.
Hanyin WangDepartment of Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA.
Christine StudenmundInstitute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA.
Ruth Ann WeidnerInstitute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA.
Farzad NoubaryInstitute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA.
Karen M FreundInstitute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA; Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA; Department of Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA.
John K ErbanDepartment of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA; Division of Hematology/Oncology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA; Department of Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA.
Susan K ParsonsInstitute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA; Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA; Division of Hematology/Oncology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA; Department of Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA; Department of Pediatrics, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA. Electronic address: sparsons@tuftsmedicalcenter.org.

Funding

Tufts Clinical and Translational Science Institute (Pilot Supplement)UL1TR002544 · NCATS · TUFTS UNIVERSITY BOSTON · PI SELKER, HARRY P. · 2018 to 2022
$50.2M
Tufts Clinical and Translational Science Institute (Clinical Trial Design Labs Supplement)UM1TR004398 · NCATS · TUFTS UNIVERSITY BOSTON · PI Harry P. Selker · 2023 to 2026
$44.5M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002544NCATS NIH HHS UM1 TR004398
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence-based timeliness benchmarks have been established to assess quality of breast cancer care, as delays in treatment are associated with poor clinical outcomes. However, few studies have evaluated how current breast cancer care meets these benchmarks and what factors may delay the timely initiation of treatment. PATIENTS AND

methodsDemographic and disease characteristics of 377 newly diagnosed patients with breast cancer who initiated treatment at Tufts Medical Center (2009-2015) were extracted from electronic medical records. Time from diagnosis to initial surgery and time from diagnosis to initiation of hormone therapy were estimated with Kaplan-Meier curves. Multivariable regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with treatment delays. Thematic analysis was performed to categorize reasons for delay.

resultsOf 319 patients who had surgery recommended as the first treatment, 248 (78%) met the 45-day benchmark (median, 28 days; 25th-75th %, 19-43). After adjusting for potential confounders, multivariable regression analysis revealed that negative hormone receptor status (odds ratio, 3.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.44-8.43) and mastectomy (odds ratio, 4.07; 95% confidence interval, 2.10-8.06) were significantly associated with delays in surgery. Delays were mostly owing to clinical complexity or logistical/financial reasons. Of 241 patients eligible for hormone therapy initiation, 232 (96%) met the 1-year benchmark (median, 147 days; 25th-75th %, 79-217).

conclusionMost patients met timeliness guidelines for surgery and initiation of hormone therapy, although risk factors for delay were identified. Knowledge of reasons for breast cancer treatment delay, including clinical complexity and logistical/financial issues, may allow targeting interventions for patients at greatest risk of care delays.

Indexed as

AgedAntineoplastic Agents, HormonalBiopsyBreastBreast NeoplasmsChemotherapy, AdjuvantElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansMastectomyMiddle AgedPractice Guidelines as TopicRadiotherapy, AdjuvantReceptors, EstrogenReceptors, ProgesteroneRetrospective StudiesAntineoplastic Agents, HormonalReceptors, EstrogenReceptors, ProgesteroneHormone therapySurgeryTimeliness benchmarkTime-to-surgeryTreatment delay

Identifiers

PMID31439436
PMCPMC11372729

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.