ArticleCancer causes & control : CCC2026
Characterizing primary care in breast cancer survivors after completion of cancer therapy.
Article in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeDespite the potential for primary care to optimize comorbidity management among breast cancer survivors, engagement with primary care providers (PCPs) remains low. This study comprehensively examined PCP-led care after breast cancer treatment to identify survivors who may benefit from targeted interventions to improve primary care engagement.
methodsWe identified 1,582 posttreatment breast cancer survivors from the U.S. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey. Weighted multivariable-adjusted logistic regression models were used to examine associations of sociodemographic, lifestyle, clinical, and survivorship-related factors with PCP-led care after cancer treatment.
resultsOverall, 72% of survivors reported receiving PCP-led follow-up (64% among those aged < 65 years; 75% among those aged ≥ 65 years), with survivors aged < 65 years having significantly lower odds of PCP-led care than those aged ≥65 years (OR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.41-0.98). Racial and ethnic differences were also evident with lower odds of receiving primary care among Non-Hispanic (NH)-Black and NH-Asian survivors compared with NH-White survivors (OR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.24-0.97; OR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.11-0.97, respectively), with particularly lower odds among younger Hispanic survivors (OR: 0.13, 95% CI: 0.03-0.49). Geographic variation across regions was also observed (South OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.25-0.72; West OR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.37-0.96, compared with Midwest). Survivors with a history of myocardial infarction further had lower odds of PCP-led care (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.20-0.80).
conclusionGaps in PCP-led care after breast cancer treatment underscore the importance of improving access and support for PCP-led engagement throughout survivorship. Future studies are needed to examine barriers to PCP-led care among younger survivors, NH-Black and NH-Asian survivors, and those with heart disease, and to characterize region-specific differences in PCP-led care across the U.S.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.