| Title |
Evaluation of waiting times for breast cancer diagnosis and surgical treatment
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical and Translational Oncology, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12094-018-1867-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
J. M. Baena-Cañada, L. Rodríguez-Pérez, S. Gámez-Casado, A. Quílez-Cutillas, C. Cortés-Carmona, P. Rosado-Varela, S. Estalella-Mendoza, P. Ramírez-Daffós, J. Jaén-Olasolo, E. Benítez-Rodríguez |
| Abstract |
To analyse any delays in breast cancer diagnosis and surgical treatment, influence of clinical and biological factors and influence of delays on survival. A descriptive, observational, and retrospective study was conducted between 2006 and 2016 on stages I-III breast cancer patients. This is a retrospective review of health records to collect data on delays, patients' clinical data, biological features of the tumour and information on treatment. Mortality data from the National Death Index. In 493 evaluable patients, the median of days from the first symptom to mammography, biopsy, and surgery was 41, 57, and 92, respectively. The median of days from screening mammography to biopsy and surgery was 10 and 51, respectively. From biopsy to surgery, the median was 34 days in every case. Over the last 5 years, an increase in biopsy-surgery delay has been observed (p = 0.0001). Tumour stages I and II vs. stage III (RR 1.74. 95% CI 1.08-2.80, p = 0.027), diagnosis in screening (RR 0.66. 95% CI 0.45-0.96, p = 0.030), and use of magnetic resonance imaging (RR 2.08. 95 CI 1.21-3.56, p = 0.008) condition a greater biopsy-surgery delay. No influence of delays on survival has been identified. Delays in diagnosis and surgery in the case of women diagnosed on the basis of symptoms may be improved. There is a temporary tendency to a greater delay in surgery. Some clinical and biological factors must be taken into account to optimise delays. Survival results are not adversely affected by delays. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 5 | 56% |
| Unknown | 4 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 56% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 41 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 10% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Researcher | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 24% |
| Unknown | 12 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 32% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 5% |
| Psychology | 2 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 14 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 October 2018.
All research outputs
#5,707,282
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Oncology
#234
of 1,321 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,514
of 329,292 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Oncology
#6
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,321 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,292 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.