4.7 Article

Timing and Delays in Breast Cancer Evaluation and Treatment

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 25, 期 10, 页码 2829-2838

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-018-6615-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [P30CA006927] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NCI NIH HHS [P30 CA006927] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Even small delays in the treatment of breast cancer are a frequently expressed concern of patients. Knowledge about this subject is important for clinicians to counsel patients appropriately and realistically, while also optimizing care. Although data and quality measures regarding time to chemotherapy and radiotherapy have been present for some time, data regarding surgical care are more recent and no standard exists. This review was written to discuss our current knowledge about the relationship of treatment times to outcomes. The published medical literature addressing delays and optimal times to treatment was reviewed in the context of our current time-dependent standards for chemotherapy and radiotherapy. The surgical literature and the lack of a time-dependent surgical standard also were discussed, suggesting a possible standard. Risk factors for delay are numerous, and tumor doubling times are both difficult to determine and unhelpful to assess the impact of longer treatment times on outcomes. Evaluation components also have a time cost and are inextricable from the patient's workup. Although the published literature has lack of uniformity, optimal times to each modality are strongly suggested by emerging data, supporting the current quality measures. Times to surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy all have a measurable impact on outcomes, including disease-free survival, disease-specific survival, and overall survival. Delays have less of an impact than often thought but have a measurable impact on outcomes. Optimal times from diagnosis are < 90 days for surgery, < 120 days for chemotherapy, and, where chemotherapy is administered, < 365 days for radiotherapy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据