Body image disturbance and surgical decision making in egyptian post menopausal breast cancer patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In most developing countries, as in Egypt; postmenopausal breast cancer cases are offered a radical form of surgery relying on their unawareness of the subsequent body image disturbance. This study aimed at evaluating the effect of breast cancer surgical choice; Breast Conservative Therapy (BCT) versus Modified Radical Mastectomy (MRM); on body image perception among Egyptian postmenopausal cases.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>One hundred postmenopausal women with breast cancer were divided into 2 groups, one group underwent BCT and the other underwent MRM. Pre- and post-operative assessments of body image distress were done using four scales; Breast Impact of Treatment Scale (BITS), Impact of Event Scale (IES), Situational Discomfort Scale (SDS), and Body Satisfaction Scale (BSS).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Preoperative assessment showed no statistical significant difference regarding cognitive, affective, behavioral and evaluative components of body image between both studied groups. While in postoperative assessment, women in MRM group showed higher levels of body image distress among cognitive, affective and behavioral aspects.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Body image is an important factor for postmenopausal women with breast cancer in developing countries where that concept is widely ignored. We should not deprive those cases from their right of less mutilating option of treatment as BCT.</p

Five National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers' data collection on racial/ethnic minority participation in therapeutic trials

BackgroundTo ensure that National Institutes of Health-funded research is relevant to the population's needs, specific emphasis on proportional representation of minority/sex groups into National Cancer Institute (NCI) cancer centers' clinical research programs is reported to the NCI.MethodsEMPaCT investigators at 5 regionally diverse comprehensive cancer centers compared data reported to the NCI for their most recent Cancer Center Support Grant competitive renewal to assess and compare the centers' catchment area designations, data definitions, data elements, collection processes, reporting, and performance regarding proportional representation of race/ethnicity and sex subsets.ResultsCancer centers' catchment area definitions differed widely in terms of their cancer patient versus general population specificity, levels of specificity, and geographic coverage. Racial/ethnic categories were similar, yet were defined differently, across institutions. Patients' socioeconomic status and insurance status were inconsistently captured across the 5 centers.ConclusionsCatchment area definitions and the collection of patient-level demographic factors varied widely across the 5 comprehensive cancer centers. This challenged the assessment of success by cancer centers in accruing representative populations into the cancer research enterprise. Accrual of minorities was less than desired for at least 1 racial/ethnic subcategory at 4 of the 5 centers. Institutions should clearly and consistently declare their primary catchment area and the rationale and should report how race/ethnicity and sex are defined, determined, collected, and reported. More standardized, frequent, consistent collection, reporting, and review of these data are recommended, as is a commitment to collecting socioeconomic data, given that socioeconomic status is a primary driver of cancer disparities in the United States

NIH Consensus Development Conference on Ovarian Cancer: Screening, Treatment, and Followup : NIH Consensus Development Conference, April 5-7, 1994, Masur Auditorium, Warren Grant Magnuson Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland /

"Program and abstracts"--Cover.Includes bibliographical references.Mode of access: Internet

Why providers participate in clinical trials: Considering the National Cancer Institute's Community Clinical Oncology Program

BACKGROUND: The translation of research evidence into practice is facilitated by clinical trials such as those sponsored by the National Cancer Institute’s Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP) that help disseminate cancer care innovations to community-based physicians and provider organizations. However, CCOP participation involves unsubsidized costs and organizational challenges that raise concerns about sustained provider participation in clinical trials. OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to improve our understanding of why providers participate in the CCOP in order to inform the decision-making process of administrators, clinicians, organizations, and policy-makers considering CCOP participation. RESEARCH METHODS: We conducted a multi-site qualitative study of five provider organizations engaged with the CCOP. We interviewed 41 administrative and clinician key informants, asking about what motivated CCOP participation, and what benefits they associated with involvement. We deductively and inductively analyzed verbatim interview transcripts, and explored themes that emerged. RESULTS: Interviewees expressed both “altruistic” and “self-interested” motives for CCOP participation. Altruistic reasons included a desire to increase access to clinical trials and feeling an obligation to patients. Self-interested reasons included the desire to enhance reputation, and a need to integrate disparate cancer care activities. Perceived benefits largely matched expressed motives for CCOP participation, and included internal and external benefits to the organization, and quality of care benefits for both patients and participating physicians. CONCLUSION: The motives and benefits providers attributed to CCOP participation are consistent with translational research goals, offering evidence that participation can contribute value to providers by expanding access to innovative medical care for patients in need