Factors associated with cancer treatment delay: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Patient perspectives of weight stigma across the cancer continuum: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Weight stigma has been defined as the social devaluation and denigration of individuals because of their weight. The purpose of this scoping systematic review was to assess and understand patient experiences with weight stigma in the cancer care setting.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic scoping review of studies examining shame, prejudice, bias, and stigma in relation to weight and cancer-related care using five databases: PubMed, CINAHL Plus Full Text (ProQuest), Cochrane Library, PsycINFO (EBSCO), and Scopus. Articles were uploaded into Covidence for de-duplication and screening. Included studies were peer reviewed, reported adult patient experiences in cancer-related care, and were published in English between October 2012 and February 2023. Study characteristics and key findings were abstracted and qualitatively synthesized.

RESULTS

Publications meeting inclusion criteria yielded five studies (n = 113 participants). Most focused on the experiences of women (n = 4) and cancers which predominantly impact women (i.e., breast, cervical, endometrial; n = 4). All stages of the cancer continuum were included with studies examining screening (n = 2), treatment (n = 1), and post-treatment survivorship (n = 2). Weight discrimination was discussed in four studies and weight-biased stereotypes were discussed in three studies. Experiences of weight bias internalization were reported in four studies. One study described an instance of implicit weight bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited studies examine patient experiences of weight stigma in cancer care; however, current evidence suggests that patients do experience weight stigma in cancer-related care. This review highlights critical gaps and a need for more research on the prevalence and impact of weight stigma in cancer screening and care.

The special sauce of the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network: 20 years of lessons learned in developing the evidence base, building community capacity, and translating research into practice

PURPOSE

The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) is a national network focused on accelerating the translation of cancer prevention and control research evidence into practice through collaborative, multicenter projects in partnership with diverse communities. From 2003 to 2022, the CPCRN included 613 members.

METHODS

We: (1) characterize the extent and nature of collaborations through a bibliometric analysis of 20 years of Network publications; and (2) describe key features and functions of the CPCRN as related to organizational structure, productivity, impact, and focus on health equity, partnership development, and capacity building through analysis of 22 in-depth interviews and review of Network documentation.

RESULTS

Searching Scopus for multicenter publications among the CPCRN members from their time of Network engagement yielded 1,074 collaborative publications involving two or more members. Both the overall number and content breadth of multicenter publications increased over time as the Network matured. Since 2004, members submitted 123 multicenter grant applications, of which 72 were funded (59%), totaling more than $77 million secured. Thematic analysis of interviews revealed that the CPCRN's success-in terms of publication and grant productivity, as well as the breadth and depth of partnerships, subject matter expertise, and content area foci-is attributable to: (1) its people-the inclusion of members representing diverse content-area interests, multidisciplinary perspectives, and geographic contexts; (2) dedicated centralized structures and processes to enable and evaluate collaboration; and (3) focused attention to strategically adapting to change.

CONCLUSION

CPCRN's history highlights organizational, strategic, and practical lessons learned over two decades to optimize Network collaboration for enhanced collective impact in cancer prevention and control. These insights may be useful to others seeking to leverage collaborative networks to address public health problems.

Timeliness of Breast Diagnostic Imaging and Biopsy in Practice: 15 Years of Collecting, Comparing, and Defining Quality Breast Cancer Care

BACKGROUND

The literature lacks well-established benchmarks for expected time between screening mammogram to diagnostic imaging and then to core needle breast biopsy.

METHODS

Timeliness of diagnostic imaging workup was evaluated using aggregate data from 2005 to 2019 submitted to The National Quality Measures for Breast Centers (NQMBC).

RESULTS

A total of 419 breast centers submitted data for 1,805,515 patients on the time from screening mammogram to diagnostic imaging. The overall time was 7 days with 75th, 25th, and 10th percentile values of 5, 10, and 13.5 days, respectively. The average time in business days decreased from 9.1 to 7.1 days (p < 0.001) over the study period with the greatest gains in poorest-performing quartiles. Screening centers and centers in the Midwest had significantly shorter time to diagnostic imaging. Time from diagnostic imaging to core needle biopsy was submitted by 406 facilities representing 386,077 patients. The average time was 6 business days, with 75th, 25th, and 10th percentiles of 4, 9, and 13.7 days, respectively. Time to biopsy improved from a mean of 9.0 to 6.3 days (p < 0.001) with the most improvement in the poorest-performing quartiles. Screening centers, centers in the Midwest, and centers in metropolitan areas had significantly shorter time to biopsy.

CONCLUSIONS

In a robust dataset, the time from screening mammogram to diagnostic imaging and from diagnostic imaging to biopsy decreased from 2005 to 2019. On average, patients could expect to have diagnostic imaging and biopsies within 1 week of abnormal results. Monitoring and comparing performance with reported data may improve quality in breast care.

Interval From Simulation Imaging to Treatment Delivery in SABR of Lung Lesions: How Long is Too Long for the Lung?

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of delay between planning computed tomography (CT) used as a basis for treatment planning and the start of treatment (delay planning treatment [DPT]), on local control (LC) for lung lesions treated by SABR.

Methods and Materials

We pooled 2 databases from 2 monocentric retrospective analysis previously published and added planning CT and positron emission tomography (PET)-CT dates. We analyzed LC outcomes based on DPT and reviewed all available cofounding factors among demographic data and treatment parameters.

Results

A total of 210 patients with 257 lung lesions treated with SABR were evaluated. The median DPT was 14 days. Initial analysis revealed a discrepancy in LC as a function of DPT and a cutoff delay of 24 days (21 days for PET-CT almost systematically done 3 days after planning CT) was determined according to the Youden method. Cox model was applied to several predictors of local recurrence-free survival (LRFS). Univariate analysis showed LRFS decreasing significantly related to DPT ≥24 days (P = .0063), gross tumor volume, and clinical target volume (P = .0001 and P = .0022), but also with the presence of >1 lesion treated with the same planning CT (P = .024). LRFS increased significantly with higher biological effective dose (P < .0001). On multivariate analysis, LRFS remained significantly lower for lesions with DPT ≥24 days (hazard ratio, 2.113; 95% confidence interval, 1.097-4.795; P = .027).

Conclusions

DPT to SABR treatment delivery for lung lesions appears to reduce local control. Timing from imaging acquisition to treatment delivery should be systematically reported and tested in future studies. Our experience suggests that the time from planning imaging to treatment should be <21 days.