ABSTRACT
Introduction: Receiving a new breast cancer diagnosis can cause anxiety and distress, which can lead to psychologic morbidity, decreased treatment adherence, and worse clinical outcomes. Understanding sources of distress is crucial in providing comprehensive care. This study aims to evaluate the relationship between delays in breast cancer diagnosis and patient-reported distress. Secondary outcomes include assessing patient characteristics associated with delay. Methods: Newly diagnosed breast cancer patients who completed a distress screening tool at their initial evaluation at an academic institution between 2014 and 2019 were retrospectively evaluated. The tool captured distress levels in the emotional, social, health, and practical domains with scores of "high distress" defined by current clinical practice guidelines. Delay from mammogram to biopsy, whether diagnostic or screening mammogram, was defined as >30 days. Result: 745 newly diagnosed breast cancer patients met inclusion criteria. Median time from abnormal mammogram to core biopsy was 12 days, and 11% of patients experienced a delay in diagnosis. The non-delayed group had higher emotional (p = 0.04) and health (p = 0.03) distress than the delayed group. No statistically significant differences in social distress were found between groups. Additionally, patients with higher practical distress had longer time interval between mammogram and surgical intervention compared to those with lower practical distress. Older age, diagnoses of invasive lobular carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ, and clinical anatomic stages 0-I were associated with diagnostic delay. Conclusion: Patients with higher emotional or health-related distress were more likely to have timely diagnoses of breast cancer, suggesting that patients with higher distress may seek healthcare interventions more promptly. Improved understanding of sources of distress will permit early intervention regarding the devastating impact of breast cancer diagnosis.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Use of traditional scoring metrics for residency recruitment creates racial and gender bias. In addition, widespread use of pass/fail grading has led to noncomparable data. To adjust to these challenges, we developed a holistic review (HR) rubric for scoring residency applicants for interview selection. DESIGN: Single-center observational study comparing the proportion of underrepresented in medicine (URM) students and their United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) scores who were invited for interview before (2015-2020) and after (2022) implementation of a holistic review process. SETTING: General surgery residency program at a tertiary academic center. PARTICIPANTS: US allopathic medical students applying for general surgery residency. RESULTS: After initial screening, a total of 1514 allopathic applicants were narrowed down to 586 (38.7%) for HR. A total of 52% were female and 17% identified as URM. Based on HR score, 20% (118/586) of applicants were invited for an interview. The median HR score was 11 (range 4-19). There was a fourfold higher coefficient of variation of HR scores (22.3; 95% CI 21.0-23.7) compared to USMLE scores (5.1; 95% Cl 4.8-5.3), resulting in greater spread and distinction among applicants. There were no significant differences in HR scores between genders (pâ¯=â¯0.60) or URM vs non-URM (pâ¯=â¯0.08). There were no significant differences in Step 1 (pâ¯=â¯0.60) and 2CK (pâ¯=â¯0.30) scores between those who were invited to interview or not. On multivariable analysis, USMLE scores (OR 1.01; 95% CI 0.98-1.03), URM status (OR 1.71 95% CI 0.98-2.92), and gender (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.60-1.45) did not predict interview selection (all p > 0.05). There was a meaningful increase in the percentage of URM interviewed after HR implementation (12.9% vs 23.1%, pâ¯=â¯0.016). CONCLUSION: The holistic review process is feasible and eliminates the use of noncomparable metrics for surgical applicant interview invitations and increases the percentage of URM applicants invited to interview.