Awareness regarding breast cancer amongst women in Pakistan: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer (BCa) is the most common cause of cancer death in Pakistan. In 2019, Pakistan saw the highest global BCa-associated death rate. But do Pakistani women know about the various aspects of BCa? And how prevalent are BCa screening methods amongst Pakistani females? These questions formed the basis for our study. METHODS: We conducted this review in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. On September 1, 2023, we searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar, and performed a citation search to search for eligible studies published in 2010 or after, using the following terms: "breast cancer" and "Pakistan". Observational studies that evaluated BCa awareness and/or practice amongst Pakistani females who were not associated with medicine were eligible. We used the National Institutes of Health quality assessment tool to assess the risk of bias. We conducted a proportion meta-analysis to calculate pooled prevalences for variables. RESULTS: Responses from 9766 Pakistani women across 18 included studies showed alarmingly low levels of BCa knowledge: risk factors, 42.7% (95% CI: 34.1%-51.4%); symptoms, 41.8% (95% CI: 26.2%-57.5%); diagnostic modalities, 36.3% (95% CI: 23.1%-49.4%); treatments, 46.6% (95% CI: 13.5%-79.8%). Prevalence of breast self-examination (BSE) and ever having undergone a clinical breast exam (CBE) was 28.7% (95% CI: 17.9%-39.6%) and 15.3% (95 CI: 11.2%-19.4%), respectively. BCa knowledge was significantly associated with better educational status, age, and socioeconomic status. CONCLUSION: On average, only two in five Pakistani women are aware of one or more risk factors, symptoms, or diagnostic modalities. Approximately one in two women know about possible BCa treatment. Less than one in three women practice regular BSE, and less than one in five women have ever undergone a CBE.

How well does the virtual format of oncology multidisciplinary team meetings work? An assessment of participants' perspectives and limitations: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Virtual multidisciplinary team meetings (VMDTM) provide a standard of care that is not limited by physical distance or social restrictions. And so, when the COVID-19 pandemic imposed irrefutable social restrictions and made in-person meetings impossible, many hospitals switched to the VMDTMs. Although the pandemic might have highlighted the ease of VMDTMs, these virtual meetings have existed over the past decade, albeit less in importance. Despite their recent importance, no review has previously assessed the feasibility of VMDTMs through the eyes of the participants, the barriers participants face, nor their comparison with the in-person format. We undertook this scoping review to map existing literature and assess the perspectives of VMDTM participants. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Google Scholar from inception till July 1st, 2023 to select studies that evaluated the perspectives of participants of VMDTMs regarding the core components that make up a VMDMT. Four authors, independently, extracted data from all included studies. Two authors separated data into major themes and sub-themes. RESULTS: We identified six core, intrinsic aspects of a VMDTM that are essential to its structure: (1) organization, (2) case discussion and decision-making, (3) teamwork and communication, (4) training and education, (5) technology, and (6) patient-related aspect. VMDTMs have a high overall satisfaction rating amongst participants. The preference, however, is for a hybrid model of multidisciplinary teams. VMDTMs offer support to isolated physicians, help address complex cases, and offer information that may not be available elsewhere. The periodical nature of VMDTMs is appropriate for their consideration as CMEs. Adequate technology is paramount to the sustenance of the format. CONCLUSION: VMDTMs are efficient and offer a multidisciplinary consensus without geographical limitations. Despite certain technical and social limitations, VMDTM participants are highly satisfied with the format, although the preference lies with a hybrid model.