Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background The help-seeking interval and primary-care interval are points of delays in breast cancer presentation. To inform future intervention targeting early diagnosis of breast cancer, we described the contribution of each interval to the delay and the impact of delay on tumor progression. Method We conducted a multicentered survey from June 2017 to May 2018 hypothesizing that most patients visited the first healthcare provider within 60 days of tumor detection. Inferential statistics were by t-test, chi-square test, and Wilcoxon-Signed Rank test at p -value 0.05 or 95% confidence limits. Time-to-event was by survival method. Multivariate analysis was by logistic regression. Results Respondents were females between 24 and 95 years ( n  = 420). Most respondents visited FHP within 60 days of detecting symptoms (230 (60, 95% CI 53–63). Most had long primary-care (237 of 377 (64 95% CI 59–68) and detection-to-specialist (293 (73% (95% CI 68–77)) intervals. The primary care interval (median 106 days, IQR 13–337) was longer than the help-seeking interval (median 42 days, IQR 7–150) Wilcoxon signed-rank test p  = 0.001. There was a strong correlation between the length of primary care interval and the detection-to-specialist interval (r = 0.9, 95% CI 0.88–0.92). Patronizing the hospital, receiving the correct advice, and having a big tumor (> 5 cm) were associated with short intervals. Tumors were detected early, but most became advanced before arriving at the specialist clinic. The difference in tumor size between detection and arriving at a specialist clinic was 5.0 ± 4.9 cm (95% CI 4.0–5.0). The hazard of progressing from early to locally advanced disease was least in the first 30 days (3%). The hazard was 31% in 90 days. Conclusion Most respondents presented early to the first healthcare provider, but most arrived late at a specialist clinic. The primary care interval was longer than the help-seeking interval. Most tumors were early at detection but locally advanced before arriving in a specialist clinic. Interventions aiming to shorten the primary care interval will have the most impact on time to breast cancer presentation for specialist oncology care in Nigeria.

Late detection of Breast cancer(BC) and progressing with advanced-stage diagnosis after early detection contribute differently to the challenges of managing BC in Africa. Understanding the difference may improve cancer education programs and their effectiveness.

Background. Reports are scanty on the impact of long primary care interval in breast cancer. Exploratory reports in Nigeria and other low-middle-income countries suggest detrimental impact. The primary aim was to describe the impact of long primary care interval on breast cancer progression, and the secondary aim was to describe the factors perceived by patients as the reason(s) for long intervals. Method. Questionnaire-based survey was used in 9 Nigerian tertiary institutions between May 2017 and July 2018. The study hypothesis was that the majority of patients stayed >30 days, and the majority experienced stage migration in primary care interval. Assessment of the impact of the length of interval on tumor stage was done by survival analysis technique, and clustering analysis was used to find subgroups of the patient journey. Results. A total of 237 patients presented to primary care personnel with tumor ≤5cm (mean 3.4±1.2cm). A total of 151 (69.3%, 95% CI 62.0-75.0) stayed >30 days in primary care interval. Risk of stage migration in primary care interval was 49.3% (95% CI 42.5%-56.3%). The most common reasons for long intervals were symptom misinformation and misdiagnosis. Clustering analysis showed 4 clusters of patients’ experience and journey: long interval due to distance, long interval due to misinformation, long interval due to deliberate delaying, and not short interval—prepared for treatment. Conclusion. The majority of patients stayed longer than 30 days in primary care interval. Long primary care interval was associated with a higher risk of stage migration, and more patients reported misinformation and misdiagnosis as reasons for a long interval.

ObjectiveTo describe the risk factors for late detection and advanced-stage diagnosis among patients who detected their BC early.MethodUsing secondary data, we analyzed the impact of socio-demographic factors, premorbid experience, BC knowledge, and health-seeking pattern on the risk of late detection and advanced-stage diagnosis after early BC detection. Test of statistical significance in SPSS and EasyR was set at 5% using Sign-test, chi-square tests (of independence and goodness of fit), odds ratio, or risk ratio as appropriate.ResultMost socio-demographic factors did not affect detection size or risk of disease progression in the 405 records analyzed. High BC knowledge, p-value = 0.001, and practicing breast self-examination (BSE) increased early detection, p-value = 0.04, with a higher probability (OR 1.6 (95% CI 1.1-2.5) of detecting <2cm lesions. Visiting alternative care (RR 1.5(95% CI 1.2-1.9), low BC knowledge (RR 1.3(95% CI 1.1-1.9), and registering concerns for hospital care increased the risk of advanced-stage diagnosis after early detection (64% (95% CI 55-72)). Adhering to the monthly BSE schedule reduced the risk of advanced-stage diagnosis by -25% (95% CI -49, -1.1) in the presence of socioeconomic barriers.ConclusionStrategies to increase BC knowledge and BSE may help BC downstaging, especially among women with common barriers to early diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: The help-seeking interval and primary-care interval are points of delays in breast cancer presentation. To inform future intervention targeting early diagnosis of breast cancer, we described the contribution of each interval to the delay and the impact of delay on tumor progression. METHOD: We conducted a multicentered survey from June 2017 to May 2018 hypothesizing that most patients visited the first healthcare provider within 60 days of tumor detection. Inferential statistics were by t-test, chi-square test, and Wilcoxon-Signed Rank test at p-value 0.05 or 95% confidence limits. Time-to-event was by survival method. Multivariate analysis was by logistic regression. RESULTS: Respondents were females between 24 and 95 years (n=420). Most respondents visited FHP within 60 days of detecting symptoms (230 (60%, 95% CI 53-63). Most had long primary-care (237 of 377 (64% 95% CI 59-68) and detection-to-specialist (293 (73% (95% CI 68-77)) intervals. The primary care interval (median 106 days, IQR 13-337 ) was longer than the help-seeking interval ( median 42 days, IQR 7-150 ) Wilcoxon signed-rank test p= 0.001. There was a strong correlation between the length of primary care interval and the detection-to-specialist interval (r= 0.9, 95% CI 0.88- 0.92). Patronizing the hospital, receiving the correct advice, and having a big tumor (>5cm) were associated with short intervals. Tumors were detected early, but most became advanced before arriving at the specialist clinic. The difference in tumor size between detection and arriving at a specialist clinic was 5.0±4.9cm (95% CI 4.0-5.0). The hazard of progressing from early to locally advanced disease was least in the first 30 days (3%). The hazard was 31% in 90 days. CONCLUSION: Most respondents presented early to the first healthcare provider, but most arrived late at a specialist clinic. The primary care interval was longer than the help-seeking interval. Most tumors were early at detection but locally advanced before arriving in a specialist clinic. Interventions aiming to shorten the primary care interval will have the most impact on time to breast cancer presentation for specialist oncology care in Nigeria.