Surveillance of waiting times for access to treatment: a registry-based computed approach in breast cancer care

Treatment time interval in breast cancer: A population-based study on the impact of type and number of cancer centres attended

OBJECTIVES

We studied both the independent and combined effects of the places of biopsy and treatment on the treatment time interval based on a population-based study.

METHODS

We analysed the proportion of patients having a treatment time interval higher than the EUSOMA recommendation of 6 weeks, as a function of the number and the type of care centres the patients attended, from a French population-based regional cohort of women treated in 2015 for an incident invasive non-metastatic cancer (n = 505).

RESULTS

About 33% [95% CI: 27; 38] of patients had a treatment time interval higher than 6 weeks. About 48% of the patients underwent their biopsy and their initial treatment in the different centres. Results from multivariable analyses supported the impact of the type and number of centres attended on the proportion of time intervals over 6 weeks. This proportion was higher among patients with biopsy and treatment in different centres and among patients treated in a university hospital.

CONCLUSION

We pointed out the independent impact of the type and the number of care centres the patients attended, from biopsy to first treatment, on the treatment time interval, which is a well-known prognosis factor.

Multidisciplinary care of breast cancer patients: a scoping review of multidisciplinary styles, processes, and outcomes

Background

Clinical practice guidelines recommend a multidisciplinary approach to cancer care that brings together all relevant disciplines to discuss optimal disease management. However, the literature is characterized by heterogeneous definitions and few reviews about the processes and outcomes of multidisciplinary care. The objective of this scoping review was to identify and classify the definitions and characteristics of multidisciplinary care, as well as outcomes and interventions for patients with breast cancer.

Methods

A systematic search for quantitative and qualitative studies about multidisciplinary care for patients with breast cancer was conducted for January 2001 to December 2017 in the following electronic databases: medline, embase, PsycInfo, and cinahl. Two reviewers independently applied our eligibility criteria at level 1 (title/abstract) and level 2 (full-text) screening. Data were extracted and synthesized descriptively.

Results

The search yielded 9537 unique results, of which 191 were included in the final analysis. Two main types of multidisciplinary care were identified: conferences and clinics. Most studies focused on outcomes of multidisciplinary care that could be variously grouped at the patient, provider, and system levels. Research into processes tended to focus on processes that facilitate implementation: team-working, meeting logistics, infrastructure, quality audit, and barriers and facilitators.

Summary

Approaches to multidisciplinary care using conferences and clinics are well described. However, studies vary by design, clinical context, patient population, and study outcome. The heterogeneity of the literature, including the patient populations studied, warrants further specification of multidisciplinary care practice and systematic reviews of the processes or contexts that make the implementation and operation of multidisciplinary care effective.

Aggressive primary treatments with favourable 5-year survival for screen-interval breast cancers

Background

To assess the impact of the participation in screening programme according to the mode of detection on the early diagnosis, treatment, and specific survival outcomes in women with breast cancer.

Methods

Women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in Poitou-Charentes region (France) between 2008 and 2009 were classified into three groups, using data linkage of cancer registry, vital statistics and French organized screening programme: the screening programme (SP), interval cancer (IC), and non-screening programme detected cancer (NSP) groups. Specific survival rates were analysed using the Kaplan–Meier method and Cox proportional hazard models.

Results

Among 1613 patients, 65.7% (n = 1059) participated in a screening programme. The interval cancer rate was 17.1% (n = 181). Tumours in the IC group were diagnosed at a more advanced stage, i.e. with further regional lymph node metastasis or local spread, than those in the SP group (p < 0.001), but with significantly fewer metastases at diagnosis than in the NSP group (p < 0.001). ICs underwent more aggressive primary treatments than the two other groups, with 28% of radical mastectomy and 67% undergoing chemotherapy. The five-year survival rate for IC group were 92.0% (95% CI, 89.9–94.0%).

Conclusions

Interval cancers had more aggressive features than screen-detected cancers but were diagnosed at a less advanced stage compared to non-screen detected cancers. Despite having cancers missed by the screening programme, women who participate in the screening process seem to benefit from early treatment. These results must be confirmed with long-term follow-up.