Immediate implant-based breast reconstruction following mastectomy is not associated with delays in adjuvant therapy

Background: Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) following mastectomy is an integral component of breast cancer surgery and contributes to improved quality of life. However, its association with higher postoperative complication rates has raised concerns about potential delays in the initiation of adjuvant therapy, which may negatively impact oncologic outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate whether immediate implant-based breast reconstruction affects the timing of adjuvant treatment.

Methods: This retrospective cohort included 930 women with stage I–III invasive breast cancer who underwent mastectomy between 2018 and 2022. Patients were stratified into two groups based on surgical approach: mastectomy with IBR (n = 200) and mastectomy without IBR (n = 730). The primary outcome was time from definitive cancer surgery to initiation of the first adjuvant treatment (chemotherapy or radiotherapy). A delay was defined as an interval exceeding 12 weeks. Logistic regression models were used to assess factors associated with treatment delay.

Results: The cohort was composed predominantly of Black women (91%). Women who underwent IBR initiated adjuvant therapy earlier than those without reconstruction [11.0 (IQR 8.0–14.0) vs. 12.0 (IQR 9.0–16.0) weeks; p < 0.01], with fewer experiencing delays beyond 12 weeks (33.3% vs. 47.4%, p < 0.01). While IBR was associated with lower odds of delay in univariate analysis (OR 0.55; 95% CI, 0.39–0.76), this association was attenuated and not statistically significant after adjustment in the multivariable analysis (OR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.46–1.01). Independent predictors of delay included clinical stage III and surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2022). Delays were more pronounced among patients scheduled for radiotherapy.

Conclusion: In this real-world cohort with predominant representation of Black women, immediate implant-based breast reconstruction after mastectomy did not delay the initiation of adjuvant therapy. IBR can be safely integrated into breast cancer treatment planning without compromising timely access to care, although factors such as advanced disease stage and healthcare workflow remain key contributors to treatment delays. Registry: Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (ReBEC), RBR-3h369zf.

1 Introduction

Breast cancer remains the most common malignant neoplasm among women worldwide, with an estimated 2.3 million new cases reported in 2022 (1). In Brazil, projections for 2025 anticipate 73,610 new cases, underscoring the disease’s substantial burden at the national level (2). Among those diagnosed, approximately 40% to 45% require mastectomy, particularly in cases of locally advanced disease. In early clinical stages (I and II), mastectomy is indicated in roughly one-third of patients; in more advanced stages (III and IV), this proportion rises to nearly two-thirds (3–5).

Immediate breast reconstruction has become an integral part of surgical planning and is endorsed by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), except in specific contraindications such as inflammatory breast cancer (6). Immediate breast reconstruction offers a range of benefits, including a single surgical procedure, reduced hospitalization, lower overall healthcare costs, preservation of body image, and improvements in self-esteem and psychological well-being—all of which contribute to better quality of life for patients (7–10).

Among the various reconstructive approaches, implant-based breast reconstruction is frequently employed and suitable for a broad patient population. It is generally faster, associated with shorter postoperative recovery times, and presents lower morbidity compared to autologous techniques (9). However, implant-based IBR has also been linked to increased postoperative complications, such as infections and reoperations, when compared to mastectomy alone (11–13).

These potential complications have raised concern among clinicians regarding whether IBR might contribute to delays in initiating adjuvant therapy—delays that could, in turn, compromise oncologic outcomes. Although there is no universal consensus on the optimal timeframe for starting adjuvant treatment, evidence suggests that delays beyond recommended windows may negatively impact survival (14). Despite these concerns, current evidence on whether implant-based IBR following mastectomy actually delays the initiation of adjuvant therapy remains inconclusive and often conflicting. This gap in the literature underscores the need for further investigation.

In this context, the present study aimed to evaluate whether implant-based IBR following mastectomy delays the time to adjuvant therapy—chemotherapy or radiotherapy—compared to mastectomy without reconstruction.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Study design and setting

This retrospective cohort study was conducted involving women diagnosed with invasive breast carcinoma in clinical stages I to III, according to the 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) (15). These patients underwent mastectomy at Aristides Maltez Hospital, a philanthropic tertiary oncology referral center located in Salvador, Brazil, which exclusively serves patients through the Public Health System, between January 2018 and December 2022. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Institute of Health Sciences at the Federal University of Bahia (approval number 5.584.821) and registered with the Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (ReBEC) under number RBR-3rxj6y6.

2.2 Participants and data collection

A total of 1,839 medical records were reviewed. Inclusion criteria consisted of women aged 18 years or older who underwent mastectomy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy or radiotherapy. Exclusion criteria included metastatic disease, prophylactic mastectomy, bilateral surgery, tumor recurrence, and initiation of adjuvant therapy at another institution. Patients who underwent pedicled myocutaneous flap reconstruction were also excluded to maintain a homogeneous study population. Additionally, cases in which adjuvant therapy was initiated more than 180 days after surgery were excluded, as they do not reflect standard clinical practice. Data were manually extracted from electronic medical records. A total of 930 women met the eligibility criteria and were divided into two groups: those who underwent IBR with implants (n = 200, 21.5%) and those who had mastectomy alone (n = 730, 78.5%). The study design followed the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) guidelines (16).

2.3 Outcomes

The primary outcome variable, time to adjuvant therapy, was defined as the time interval between the last definitive cancer surgery and the initiation of the first adjuvant treatment, either chemotherapy or radiotherapy. The final cancer surgery could include additional oncologic procedures, such as margin re-excision or axillary lymph node dissection, but excluded reoperations due to surgical complications. The initiation of adjuvant therapy was determined by the date of the first cycle of adjuvant chemotherapy or the first session of radiotherapy, whichever occurred first. For patients who received both modalities, only the start date of the first administered treatment was considered. Time to hormone therapy was not assessed. A delay in adjuvant therapy was defined as an interval exceeding 12 weeks after surgery. Although the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) (6) recommends initiating adjuvant systemic therapy ideally within 4–6 weeks after surgery, this broader threshold was adopted based on evidence showing that delays beyond 8–12 weeks are associated with worse oncologic outcomes. Previous studies have reported that initiating adjuvant chemotherapy after this period increases the risk of recurrence and mortality, with hazard ratios ranging from 1.5 to 1.6 for overall survival and significantly higher recurrence rates (14, 17, 18). The same criterion was used to define delay in the initiation of postoperative radiotherapy, as recommended by the 1st Central-Eastern European Professional Consensus Statement on Breast Cancer (19). The time to initiation of endocrine therapy was not included in the analysis, as its administration is often less standardized and typically occurs sequentially after chemotherapy or radiotherapy, precluding a consistent postoperative interval definition. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on the type of first adjuvant therapy. Time to chemotherapy (from surgery to first cycle) and time to radiotherapy (from surgery to first session) were analyzed as secondary outcomes, given their distinct clinical implications. Therefore, these endpoints were examined in separate analytical subsections.

2.4 Variables

Sociodemographic variables included age at surgery, ethnicity, menopausal status, smoking status, presence of comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular, pulmonary, neurological, and psychiatric conditions), body mass index (BMI), year of surgery, and distance (in kilometers) from the patient’s city of residence to the hospital city, calculated using Google Maps. Clinical and pathological variables included clinical stage, Tumor histologic type, histologic grade, hormone receptor status, HER2 expression, Ki-67 proliferation index, skin invasion, lymphovascular invasion, in situ component and extranodal extension. Surgical variables included type of mastectomy—total mastectomy (complete breast removal), skin-sparing mastectomy (removal of breast tissue and nipple-areola complex while preserving most of the skin), and nipple-sparing mastectomy (removal of breast tissue while preserving the skin and nipple-areola complex); axillary surgery (sentinel lymph node biopsy or axillary lymph node dissection) and implant type (direct-to-implant or tissue expander). Oncological treatment variables included neoadjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant therapy, adjuvant chemotherapy regimen, and radiotherapy modality (conventional or hypofractionated).

2.5 Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics, version 23 (IBM Corp., 2023). Continuous variables were expressed as means (± standard deviations) or medians (interquartile ranges). Categorical variables were reported as absolute frequencies and percentages. Between-group comparisons were conducted using Student’s t-test or the Mann–Whitney U test for continuous variables, depending on distribution, and the chi-square test for categorical variables. The time from surgery to initiation of adjuvant therapy (in weeks) was treated as a continuous variable. Univariate analysis included sociodemographic, clinical, pathological, and surgical variables, selected based on clinical relevance and evidence from literature. Variables with a p-value < 0.10 in univariate analysis were entered for inclusion in the multivariate model. A two-tailed p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

2.6 Sample size calculation

The sample size was estimated using the Sealed Envelope tool (Sealed Envelope Ltd., 2021), based on a retrospective cohort study by Grigor et al. (20), which found no significant difference in time to initiation of adjuvant therapy between patients who underwent mastectomy alone and those who received IBR following mastectomy. Assuming a 95% confidence level, a 5% significance level, and an expected difference of 5%, a minimum of 90 participants (45 in each group) would be required. Nevertheless, all eligible patients treated between 2018 and 2022 were consecutively included through a nonprobability convenience sampling approach, ensuring the real-world representativeness of the sample.

3 Results

3.1 Study population characteristics

Of the 1,839 patients initially assessed, 930 women with stage I–III breast cancer who underwent mastectomy followed by chemotherapy or radiotherapy at Aristides Maltez Hospital were included in the study. A total of 909 patients (49.4%) were excluded, primarily due to cancer recurrence, metastatic disease, loss to follow-up, or absence of adjuvant chemotherapy or radiotherapy (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Figure 1. Flowchart of patient selection and exclusion. CT, chemotherapy; RT, radiotherapy.

The study population consisted predominantly of Black women (91%), with a median age of 50 years (IQR 42–60). Most were premenopausal. A greater proportion of patients presented with advanced T3/T4 tumors (445/831; 53.6%), and the most common immunohistochemical subtype was HR+/HER2− (540/916; 59%). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was administered to 478 patients (51.4%). Baseline characteristics are summarized (Table 1).

Table 1

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the study population stratified by immediate breast reconstruction.

A total of 200 women (21.5%) underwent IBR. This group was significantly younger, with a median age of 44 years (IQR 37–49), had a higher prevalence of premenopausal status (79.0% vs. 43.6%; p < 0.01), and fewer comorbidities (25.0% vs. 47.8%; p < 0.01). Subpectoral reconstruction was performed in all patients in this group. The implant types used were direct silicone implants in 134 patients (67.0%), tissue expanders in 53 (26.5%), and unspecified in 13 (6.5%). Mastectomy types in this group included skin-sparing in 107 patients (53.5%), nipple-sparing in 28 (14.0%), and total mastectomy in 65 (32.5%).

Of the 730 women (78.5%) who underwent mastectomy without IBR, there was a higher prevalence of obesity (29.8% vs. 17.9%; p = 0.01), clinical stage III disease (50.3% vs. 24.4%; p < 0.01), axillary lymph node dissection (79.2% vs. 57%; p < 0.01), and receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (50.7% vs. 41.0%; p = 0.02). Subsequent postoperative histopathological findings, including tumor type and biological markers, are detailed (Table 2).

Table 2

Table 2. Postoperative histopathological characteristics.

Among patients receiving chemotherapy as their initial adjuvant treatment, 424 (45.6%) received this modality, with anthracycline-based regimens administered in 319 (75.2%) cases and taxanes in 296 (69.8%). Of the remaining 506 (54.4%) who initiated adjuvant therapy with radiotherapy, a hypofractionated protocol was used in 165 (32.6%) cases. Chemotherapy was more commonly used as the initial adjuvant therapy in the IBR group, occurring in 110 (55.0%) women, whereas radiotherapy predominated among those without IBR, with 416 (57.0%) receiving it as their initial modality.

3.2 Time to adjuvant therapy

The mean time from surgery to initiation of the first adjuvant therapy was 12.3 ± 4.6 weeks. A total of 412 patients (44.3%) experienced delays greater than 12 weeks, more commonly in the non-reconstruction group (47.4% vs. 33.3%; p < 0.01). In the overall population, patients in the IBR group initiated adjuvant therapy earlier than those in the non-IBR group [11.0 (IQR 8.0–14.0) vs. 12.0 (IQR 9.0–16.0) weeks; p < 0.01].

Immediate breast reconstruction was associated with a 45% reduction in the odds of delay (>12 weeks) in the univariate analysis (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.39–0.76; p < 0.01). However, this association was not statistically significant in the multivariate analysis (OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.46–1.01; p = 0.06). Exploratory analyses identified year of surgery and clinical stage as factors associated with delayed treatment in both univariate and multivariate models (Table 3). Delays in the initiation of adjuvant therapy were more frequent during the pandemic period (2020 to 2022) compared with the pre-pandemic years (2018 to 2019) (Figure 2). The median time to start adjuvant therapy was significantly longer during the pandemic, 13.0 weeks (IQR 10.0–16.0), compared with 11.0 weeks (IQR 8.0–14.0) before the pandemic (p < 0.01). The proportion of patients who began adjuvant therapy more than 12 weeks after surgery was also significantly higher during the pandemic (53.9%) than in the pre-pandemic period (31.4%) (p < 0.01). In addition, clinical stage III emerged as an independent predictor of delayed initiation of adjuvant therapy beyond 12 weeks (Figure 3).

Table 3

Table 3. Logistic regression analysis of factors associated with delayed initiation of adjuvant therapy (>12 weeks).

Figure 2

Figure 2. Distribution of patients (n = 930) by year of surgery and timing of adjuvant therapy initiation (≤12 vs. >12 weeks). Bars represent the number of patients who started adjuvant therapy within ≤12 weeks (blue) or after >12 weeks (green) of surgery for each year. Numbers above the bars indicate the number of cases in each category.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Distribution of patients (n = 834) by clinical stage and timing of adjuvant therapy initiation. Each pair of bars represents the number of patients who started adjuvant therapy within ≤ 12 weeks (blue) or after > 12 weeks (green) following surgery, stratified by clinical stage (I–III). Numbers above the bars indicate the number of cases in each category.

3.2.1 Time to adjuvant chemotherapy

Among patients whose first adjuvant therapy was chemotherapy, the mean time to initiation was 10 weeks (± 3.7). Most patients (341, 80.4%) began treatment within the recommended 12-week timeframe. When applying the narrower ESMO-defined interval of 4–6 weeks (6), only 14.6% of patients met this target, with comparable proportions between the IBR and non-IBR groups (18.2% vs. 13.4%, p = 0.28). The median time from surgery to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy was 9.0 weeks (IQR 7.0–11.0) in the IBR group and 10.0 weeks (IQR 7.0–12.0) in the non-IBR group, with no statistically significant difference between groups (p = 0.08).

3.2.2 Time to adjuvant radiotherapy

For patients who received radiotherapy as the initial adjuvant treatment, the mean time to initiation was 14.3 weeks (± 4.3), with delays occurring in 65.0% of cases (>12 weeks). Patients in the IBR group experienced shorter intervals between surgery and initiation of radiotherapy compared to those in the non-IBR group [13.0 (IQR 11.0–15.0) vs. 14.0 (IQR 11.0–17.0) weeks; p = 0.01].

4 Discussion

4.1 Impact of delays in adjuvant therapy

Timely initiation of adjuvant therapy remains a critical global benchmark in oncologic care, as treatment delays have been consistently associated with worse clinical outcomes, including increased mortality, recurrence, psychosocial burden, and higher healthcare costs (21). In the present study, 55.7% of patients initiated adjuvant therapy within 12 weeks following surgery, an interval generally accepted by most international guidelines. Hanna et al. (14) demonstrated in a meta-analysis that each four-week delay in initiating surgery, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy was associated with increased mortality risk for several cancer types, including breast cancer.

Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain the oncologic benefits of initiating adjuvant therapy as early as possible after surgery. Prompt treatment may reduce the opportunity for residual cancer cells to proliferate (22, 23), inhibit angiogenesis, prevent the development of drug resistance, limit the acceleration of micrometastatic dissemination following tumor, and mitigate the immunosuppressive effects of the primary tumor (18, 24). This highlights the critical need for timely and coordinated planning between surgery and adjuvant therapy by the multidisciplinary cancer care team. Such synchronization can be especially challenging in low- and middle-income countries, where systemic resource constraints and infrastructure gaps may hinder optimal treatment sequencing.

4.2 Immediate breast reconstruction on time to adjuvant therapy

The concern that IBR may delay the initiation of adjuvant therapy stems from its association with higher postoperative complication rates compared to mastectomy alone (5, 12, 13). However, our study found the opposite: among women with stage I–III breast cancer, those who underwent mastectomy with implant-based IBR began adjuvant therapy significantly earlier than those treated with mastectomy without reconstruction.

These results differ from several prior studies that suggested IBR may delay adjuvant therapy (3, 25–29). For instance, Heeg et al. (25) reported that patients who underwent IBR were less likely to initiate chemotherapy within six weeks, although the difference was not significant at nine or twelve weeks. In contrast, other studies have demonstrated comparable or even improved timelines among patients undergoing IBR (4, 20, 24, 30). A systematic review by Harmeling et al. (7) found that IBR does not lead to clinically meaningful delays in chemotherapy. Similarly, Jabo et al. (24) found no significant differences in the time to chemotherapy or radiotherapy among over 56,000 women with stage 0–III breast cancer, including 13,738 who received IBR. The conflicting results across studies may be attributed to the evaluation of heterogeneous patient populations, variation in breast reconstruction techniques, and varied criteria or conceptual frameworks used to define and measure delays in adjuvant therapy initiation.

The discrepancy in findings across studies may reflect patient selection biases. In our cohort, patients who underwent IBR were significantly younger, more often premenopausal, and had fewer comorbidities—factors that may contribute to faster postoperative recovery. This aligns with existing literature indicating that favorable baseline characteristics are common among patients undergoing IBR (4, 24). Despite the higher risk of surgical complications associated with IBR, a meta-analysis by Shen et al. (5) concluded that it does not compromise oncologic safety and may even be associated with improved survival, potentially serving as a proxy for better socioeconomic status.

The reconstructive technique employed may also have influenced our findings. Implant-based breast reconstruction, which was used in all patients in our IBR group, is generally associated with shorter operative times, quicker recovery, and fewer complications than autologous flap procedures (9). Notably, 67% of reconstructions in our study were direct-to-implant, which may have contributed to the shorter interval before adjuvant therapy. In support of this, Kupstas et al. (27) observed greater delays in patients receiving tissue expanders compared to direct-to-implant reconstructions.

When stratified by the type of initial adjuvant therapy, the majority of women (85.4%) commenced chemotherapy within 12 weeks, aligning with the upper limit most frequently endorsed in the literature. There is no international consensus regarding the optimal time interval for initiating chemotherapy or radiotherapy (21). For chemotherapy, the acceptable delay between surgery and treatment generally ranges from 7 to 12 weeks, though this definition remains controversial (26). According to the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), the ideally recommended interval for starting chemotherapy is between 4 and 6 weeks, and evidence suggests that exceeding 12 weeks compromises treatment efficacy (6).

Conversely, while chemotherapy delays were relatively uncommon (14.6%), delays in initiating radiotherapy were observed in 65% of patients, raising concern about procedural bottlenecks specific to radiation planning and access. Determining the optimal interval for initiating radiotherapy following breast surgery remains a subject of debate, as the literature presents heterogeneous findings across different populations and employs varied definitions of what constitutes a delay (31–35). Nevertheless, there is broad agreement that radiotherapy delays can produce adverse outcomes comparable to those associated with chemotherapy delays, even if the specific acceptable timelines remain unclear (36, 37). A meta-analysis found that delays of more than eight weeks were associated with increased locoregional recurrence, although other studies reported no significant detriment for delays extending up to 20 weeks (4). According to the Central and Eastern European consensus, radiotherapy should be initiated after proper wound healing—ideally between 4 and 6 weeks, and no later than 12 weeks postoperatively (19).

Alongside increased rates of postmastectomy breast reconstruction, there has been a parallel rise in the use of postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) among reconstructed patients (38). However, most existing studies have focused on the impact of radiotherapy on breast reconstruction outcomes (39) rather than evaluating how reconstruction may influence the timing of radiotherapy itself. Future research should aim to clarify the optimal timing of PMRT and assess its oncologic consequences more systematically.

4.3 Influence of clinical and demographic variables on time to adjuvant therapy initiation

Although IBR was associated with reduced odds of delay in univariate analysis (OR 0.55), this association lost statistical significance after adjustment (OR 0.69, p = 0.06), suggesting the presence of confounding variables. Notably, the year of surgery and clinical stage were significant predictors of delay. The COVID-19 pandemic period (2020–2022) emerged as a strong predictor of treatment delay, with 53% of patients experiencing postponed initiation of adjuvant therapy. This observation is consistent with international reports indicating that pandemic-related disruptions significantly compromised access to cancer care. Previous studies have documented interruptions in oncologic treatment delivery influenced by the pandemic’s stage, regional policy responses, and healthcare system capacity (40, 41). Supporting our findings, national data from Brazil reported a 25% reduction in the initiation of adjuvant therapy during this period, particularly among patients with early-stage breast cancer, reinforcing the pandemic’s negative impact on timely treatment (42). Conversely, data from the United States showed no significant delay in systemic treatment initiation (43). Similarly, Losurdo et al. (44) reported that high-volume Italian breast centers participating in the Senonetwork maintained standard treatment timelines without observable delays in surgery, radiotherapy, or systemic therapy. These contrasting findings likely reflect differences in healthcare infrastructure, organizational efficiency, and resource allocation across health systems.

In addition to demographic, socioeconomic, comorbidity-related, and tumor-specific factors, such as histologic subtype, tumor grade, and clinical stage, several variables have been associated with delays in the initiation of adjuvant therapy (45). In our cohort, clinical stage III breast cancer was found to be a significant predictor of delayed treatment. Notably, the non-IBR group exhibited a significantly higher proportion of stage III disease compared to the IBR group (50.3% vs. 24.4%, p < 0.01), which may partially explain the increased incidence of delay in that subgroup. This finding aligns with prior reports suggesting that greater tumor burden may complicate treatment coordination and prolong postoperative recovery. However, contrasting evidence exists. For example, Chavez-MacGregor et al. (18) found that stage III patients experienced fewer delays than those with stage I disease, possibly reflecting a greater sense of clinical urgency that accelerates treatment in some contexts. Despite this, delays beyond 61 days in initiating adjuvant therapy among patients with stage III disease have been linked to worse oncologic outcomes, including higher recurrence rates (46). Additional factors known to influence treatment timelines include patient age, hospital type, communication with physicians, trust in the oncologist, and rural residence (47). These findings underscore the importance of understanding how these intersecting variables contribute to treatment disparities and highlight the need for targeted strategies to promote equitable, timely access to breast cancer care.

Although this study was not designed to assess racial disparities, the cohort’s composition, with 91% of participants identifying as Black women, deserves attention. Nearly half of the patients (44.3%) experienced delays greater than 12 weeks in starting adjuvant therapy, and 45.1% presented with stage III disease, reflecting a high burden of advanced cancer and challenges in timely care among racially minoritized populations. Despite the limited number of White patients precluding direct racial comparisons, our findings align with prior reports showing that Black women face greater barriers to timely breast cancer treatment (48, 49).

In Brazil, structural inequities, racial identity, and socioeconomic status remain persistent obstacles to equitable breast cancer treatment (50). A population-based study found that non-White women, patients with low educational attainment, and those treated within the public health system had significantly longer wait times to initiate treatment (51). Internationally, similar disparities have been well documented. In the United States, Black and Hispanic women, as well as individuals from lower socioeconomic strata, face higher risks of treatment delay, often driven by systemic barriers such as residential segregation and healthcare inaccessibility (52). The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has reported that, despite comparable screening rates, Black women encounter longer delays in diagnostic follow-up and treatment initiation, which contributes to poorer survival outcomes (53). Furthermore, even within the same tertiary care institutions, racial and ethnic minority patients experience treatment delays, suggesting entrenched institutional biases and structural inequalities (54, 55).

These findings reinforce previous reports and underscore the importance of addressing racial and social inequities in breast cancer treatment. Future investigations should adopt robust methodological designs to explore actionable barriers and facilitators of care. Additionally, implementing patient navigation strategies and equity-centered policies may serve as interventions to ensure more timely and just cancer care delivery across diverse populations.

4.4 Time-to-treatment as a quality indicator in breast cancer care

Timely initiation of cancer treatment is widely recognized as a critical factor for both patients and physicians. However, evaluating treatment timeliness is challenging due to the multimodal nature of cancer therapy and variability in treatment pathways, particularly surgical approaches (27). The paradox lies in the fact that prolonged waiting times to initiate treatment negatively impact morbidity, mortality, and patient well-being (56). Accordingly, investigating treatment timing is crucial, as it serves as a performance indicator for healthcare systems and cancer centers. Several organizations advocate for the use of time-to-treatment as a benchmark for breast cancer care quality of care in breast cancer, including the National Quality Measures for Breast Centers Program, the National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers, the National Quality Forum, and the American Society of Breast Surgeons (48).

Despite growing recognition of its importance, the precise impact of treatment delays on breast cancer survival remains insufficiently understood. Understanding the factors that may interfere with treatment logistics—such as the different surgical options for breast cancer—can help inform the design of healthcare systems and care delivery models. Consequently, this may promote equitable and accessible treatment strategies that positively influence oncologic outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and especially, psychosocial well-being.

4.5 Strengths and limitations

This study presents several limitations, chiefly its retrospective design, which constrained the analysis to associations between clinical variables and the timing of adjuvant therapy initiation. Consequently, causal inferences could not be established. Data were collected from the electronic medical records of a single tertiary cancer center. The analysis was restricted to the interval between surgery and adjuvant therapy, without evaluating the potential impact of treatment delays on oncologic outcomes.

Additionally, the exclusion of endocrine therapy may limit the applicability of our findings to hormone receptor–positive tumors. As a result, this exclusion may have increased the relative proportion of more aggressive subtypes, such as HER2-positive or triple-negative breast cancers.

Furthermore, another important limitation is that a substantial proportion of patients did not initiate adjuvant therapy within the recommended timeframe. In our cohort, only 55.7% of patients started any adjuvant treatment within 12 weeks after surgery, and among those receiving chemotherapy, only 14.6% initiated treatment within the 6-week interval recommended by ESMO. This deviation from the ideal guideline-based timelines reflects the reality of clinical practice in our setting. Therefore, our findings should be interpreted as representative of real-world conditions.

Nevertheless, this study also exhibits important strengths. The predominance of Black women in the study population is particularly noteworthy, given the persistent underrepresentation of this group in oncologic research. Moreover, the study was conducted at a public cancer referral center with a substantial sample size, enhancing the representativeness and generalizability of the findings. This enabled the evaluation of healthcare quality indicators and the identification of modifiable factors that may inform navigation strategies aimed at reducing treatment inequities, particularly among women with locally advanced breast cancer. Finally, the inclusion of patients who had undergone the same standardized technique for IBR strengthened the internal validity and comparability of the subgroup analyses.

5 Conclusion

In this real-world cohort with predominant representation of Black women, patients with clinical stage I to III breast cancer who underwent IBR after mastectomy had a shorter time to the initiation of first adjuvant therapy compared with those who had mastectomy without reconstruction. After adjusting for clinical and demographic confounders, this association was no longer significant, indicating that IBR was not independently associated with delayed initiation of chemotherapy or radiotherapy. These findings suggest that IBR can be safely integrated into treatment planning without compromising timely access to adjuvant care. Nonetheless, the year of surgery and clinical stage III were identified as independent predictors of delayed initiation of adjuvant therapy.

Future research should investigate how demographic, clinical, and pathological factors influence care coordination and treatment logistics throughout the oncologic continuum. Although our study did not directly assess this issue, our findings may nonetheless offer insights to inform the development of navigation programs or targeted interventions aimed at the early identification of women at increased risk for treatment delays. Moreover, it is essential to explore how delays between treatment modalities affect oncologic outcomes and healthcare expenditures, particularly within public health systems.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics statement

The studies involving humans were approved by Research Ethics Committee of the Institute of Health Sciences, Federal University of Bahia (UFBA), Salvador, Brazil. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The ethics committee/institutional review board waived the requirement of written informed consent for participation from the participants or the participants’ legal guardians/next of kin because the study is a retrospective chart review with no impact on patient care or physical/biological risk. Some patients were no longer in follow-up, making consent impracticable. All data were de-identified and securely stored to ensure confidentiality.

Author contributions

LP: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. JB: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Software, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. The authors declare that this study was supported by a doctoral fellowship from the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brasil (CAPES), Finance Code 001.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

1. Bray F, Laversanne M, Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. (2024) 74:229–63. doi: 10.3322/caac.21834

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Estimativa 2023: incidência de câncer no Brasil . INCA - Instituto Nacional de Câncer. Available online at: https://www.inca.gov.br/publicacoes/livros/estimativa-2023-incidencia-de-cancer-no-brasil (Accessed May 3, 2023).

Google Scholar

3. Baek SH, Bae SJ, Yoon CI, Park SE, Cha CH, Ahn SG, et al. Immediate breast reconstruction does not have a clinically significant impact on adjuvant treatment delay and subsequent survival outcomes. J Breast Cancer. (2019) 22:109–19. doi: 10.4048/JBC.2019.22.E7

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

4. O’Connell RL, Rattay T, Dave RV, Trickey A, Skillman J, Barnes NLP, et al. The impact of immediate breast reconstruction on the time to delivery of adjuvant therapy: the iBRA-2 study. Br J Cancer. (2019) 120:883–95. doi: 10.1038/S41416-019-0438-1

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

5. Shen Z, Sun J, Yu Y, Chiu C, Zhang Z, Zhang Y, et al. Oncological safety and complication risks of mastectomy with or without breast reconstruction: A Bayesian analysis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. (2021) 74:290–9. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2020.08.121

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

6. Loibl S, André F, Bachelot T, Barrios CH, Bergh J, Burstein HJ, et al. Early breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up ☆. Ann Oncol. (2024) 35:159–82. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2023.11.016

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

7. Xavier Harmeling J, Kouwenberg CAE, Bijlard E, Burger KNJ, Jager A, and Mureau MAM. The effect of immediate breast reconstruction on the timing of adjuvant chemotherapy: a systematic review. Breast Cancer Res Treat. (2015) 153:241–51. doi: 10.1007/s10549-015-3539-4

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

8. Eltahir Y, Krabbe-Timmerman IS, Sadok N, Werker PMN, and de Bock GH. Outcome of Quality of Life for Women Undergoing Autologous versus Alloplastic Breast Reconstruction following Mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. (2020) 145:1109–23. doi: 10.1097/prs.0000000000006720

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

9. Shumway DA, Momoh AO, Sabel MS, and Jagsi R. Integration of breast reconstruction and postmastectomy radiotherapy. J Clin Oncol. (2020) 38:2229–40. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.02850

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

10. Franceschini G, Scardina L, Di Leone A, Terribile DA, Sanchez AM, Magno S, et al. Personalized Medicine Immediate Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction after Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Traditional Subpectoral Technique versus Direct-to-Implant Prepectoral Reconstruction without Acellular Dermal Matrix. J Pers Med. (2021) 11:153. doi: 10.3390/jpm11020153

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

11. Reddy S, Colakoglu S, Curtis MS, Yueh JH, Ogunleye A, Tobias AM, et al. Breast cancer recurrence following postmastectomy reconstruction compared to mastectomy with no reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. (2011) 66:466–71. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0b013e318214e575

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

12. Nickel KB, Fox IK, Margenthaler JA, Wallace AE, Fraser VJ, and Olsen MA. Effect of noninfectious wound complications after mastectomy on subsequent surgical procedures and early implant loss. J Am Coll Surg. (2016) 222:844–852.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2016.01.050

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

13. Sousa J, Sood R, Liu D, Calhoun K, Louie O, Neligan P, et al. Comparison of outcomes in immediate implant-based breast reconstruction versus mastectomy alone. Plast Surg. (2018) 26:18–25. doi: 10.1177/2292550317731764

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

14. Hanna TP, King WD, Thibodeau S, Jalink M, Paulin GA, Harvey-Jones E, et al. Mortality due to cancer treatment delay: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. (2020) 371:m4087. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m4087

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

15. Amin MB, Edge SB, Greene FL, Byrd DR, Brookland RK, Washington MK, et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 8th ed. Chicago, IL: American Joint Committee on Cancer; 2017. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-40618-3

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

16. Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, and Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. PloS Med. (2007) 4:1623–7. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

17. Lohrisch C, Paltiel C, Gelmon K, Speers C, Taylor S, Barnett J, et al. Impact on survival of time from definitive surgery to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. (2006) 24:4888–94. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.01.6089

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

18. Chavez-MacGregor M, Clarke CA, Lichtensztajn DY, and Giordano SH. Delayed initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy among patients with breast cancer. JAMA Oncol. (2016) 2:322–9. doi: 10.1001/JAMAONCOL.2015.3856

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

19. Polgár C, Kahán Z, Ivanov O, Chorváth M, Ligačová A, Csejtei A, et al. Radiotherapy of breast cancer—Professional guideline 1st central-eastern European professional consensus statement on breast cancer. Pathol Oncol Res. (2022) 28:1610378. doi: 10.3389/pore.2022.1610378

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

20. Grigor EJM, Stein MJ, Arnaout A, Ghaedi B, Cormier N, Ramsay T, et al. The effect of immediate breast reconstruction on adjuvant therapy delay, locoregional recurrence, and disease-free survival. Breast J. (2021) 27:857–62. doi: 10.1111/tbj.14290

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

21. Abdel-Razeq H, Mansour A, Edaily S, and Dayyat A. Delays in initiating anti-cancer therapy for early-stage breast cancer—How slow can we go? J Clin Med. (2023) 12:4502. doi: 10.3390/jcm12134502

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

22. Karlsson P, Cole BF, Price KN, Gelber RD, Coates AS, Goldhirsch A, et al. Timing of radiation therapy and chemotherapy after breast-conserving surgery for node-positive breast cancer: long-term results from international breast cancer study group trials VI and VII. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. (2016) 96:273–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.06.2448

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

23. Recht A, Comen EA, Fine RE, Fleming GF, Hardenbergh PH, Ho AY, et al. Postmastectomy radiotherapy : an American society of clinical oncology, American society for radiation oncology, and society of surgical oncology focused guideline update. PRRO. (2016) 6:e219–34. doi: 10.1016/j.prro.2016.08.009

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

24. Jabo B, Lin AC, Aljehani MA, Ji L, Morgan JW, Selleck MJ, et al. Impact of breast reconstruction on time to definitive surgical treatment, adjuvant therapy, and breast cancer outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol. (2018) 25:3096–105. doi: 10.1245/s10434-018-6663-7

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

25. Downing A, Twelves C, Forman D, Lawrence G, and Gilthorpe MS. Time to begin adjuvant chemotherapy and survival in breast cancer patients: A retrospective observational study using latent class analysis. Breast J. (2014) 20:29–36. doi: 10.1111/tbj.12209

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

26. Heeg E, Harmeling JX, Becherer BE, Marang-van de Mheen PJ, Vrancken Peeters MTFD, and Mureau MAM. Nationwide population-based study of the impact of immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy on the timing of adjuvant chemotherapy. Br J Surg. (2019) 106:1640–8. doi: 10.1002/bjs.11300

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

27. Kupstas AR, Hoskin TL, Day CN, Habermann EB, and Boughey JC. Effect of surgery type on time to adjuvant chemotherapy and impact of delay on breast cancer survival: A national cancer database analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. (2019) 26:3240–9. doi: 10.1245/S10434-019-07566-7

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

28. Pomponio MK, Keele LJ, Fox KR, Clark AS, Matro JM, Shulman LN, et al. Does time to adjuvant chemotherapy (TTC) affect outcomes in patients with triple − negative breast cancer? Breast Cancer Res Treat. (2019) 177:137–43. doi: 10.1007/s10549-019-05282-0

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

29. Valente SA, Liu Y, Upadhyaya S, Tu C, and Pratt DA. The effect of wound complications following mastectomy with immediate reconstruction on breast cancer recurrence. Am J Surg. (2019) 217:514–8. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2018.10.028

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

30. Eriksen C, Frisell J, Wickman M, Lidbrink E, Krawiec K, and Sandelin K. Immediate reconstruction with implants in women with invasive breast cancer does not affect oncological safety in a matched cohort study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. (2011) 127:439–46. doi: 10.1007/s10549-011-1437-y

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

31. Desai S, Hurley J, Takita C, Reis IM, Zhao W, Rodgers SE, et al. Impact of surgery-radiation interval on locoregional outcome in patients receiving neo-adjuvant therapy and mastectomy. Breast J. (2013) 19:427–30. doi: 10.1111/tbj.12140

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

32. Van Maaren MC, Bretveld RW, Jobsen JJ, Veenstra RK, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CG, Struikmans H, et al. The influence of timing of radiation therapy following breast-conserving surgery on 10-year disease-free survival. Br J Cancer. (2017) 117:179–88. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2017.159

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

33. Nava MB, Ottolenghi J, Pennati A, Spano A, Bruno N, Catanuto G, et al. Skin/nipple sparing mastectomies and implant-based breast reconstruction in patients with large and ptotic breast: Oncological and reconstructive results. Breast. (2012) 21:267–71. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2011.01.004

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

34. Marta GN, AlBeesh R, Pereira AAL, Oliveira LJ, Mano MS, and Hijal T. The impact on clinical outcomes of post-operative radiation therapy delay after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer: A multicentric international study. Breast. (2020) 54:46–51. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2020.08.013

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

35. Raphael MJ, Biagi JJ, Kong W, Mates M, Booth CM, and Mackillop WJ. The relationship between time to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy and survival in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. (2016) 160:17–28. doi: 10.1007/s10549-016-3960-3

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

36. Brito S, Andresson A, Pereira L, Nader G, Carlos M, De Azevedo L, et al. Clinical impact of adjuvant radiation therapy delay after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer. The Breast (2018) 38:4–9. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2017.11.012

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

37. Cao L, Xu C, Cai G, Qi WX, Cai R, Wang SB, et al. How does the interval between completion of adjuvant chemotherapy and initiation of radiotherapy impact clinical outcomes in operable breast cancer patients? Ann Surg Oncol. (2021) 28:2155–68. doi: 10.1245/s10434-020-09026-z

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

38. Doherty C, Pearce S, Baxter N, Knowles S, Ross D, McClure JA, et al. Trends in immediate breast reconstruction and radiation after mastectomy: A population study. Breast J. (2020) 26:446–53. doi: 10.1111/TBJ.13500

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

39. Ricci JA, Epstein S, Momoh AO, Lin SJ, Singhal D, and Lee BT. ScienceDirect Association for Academic Surgery A meta-analysis of implant-based breast reconstruction and timing of adjuvant radiation therapy. J Surg Res. (2017) 218:108–16. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2017.05.072

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

40. Garg PK, Kaul P, Choudhary D, Turaga KK, Singh MP, Tiwari AR, et al. Discordance of COVID-19 guidelines for patients with cancer: A systematic review. J Surg Oncol. (2020) 122:579–93. doi: 10.1002/jso.26110

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

41. Eijkelboom AH, de Munck L, Vrancken Peeters M. J. T. F. D., Broeders MJM, Strobbe LJA, Bos MEMM, et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on diagnosis, stage, and initial treatment of breast cancer in the Netherlands: a population-based study. J Hematol Oncol. (2021) 14:1–12. doi: 10.1186/s13045-021-01073-7

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

42. Duarte MBO, Argenton JLP, and Carvalheira JBC. Impact of COVID-19 in cervical and breast cancer screening and systemic treatment in São Paulo, Brazil: an interrupted time series analysis. JCO Glob Oncol. (2022) 8:1–16. doi: 10.1200/go.21.00371

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

43. Chung SH, Romatoski KS, Rasic G, Beaulieu-Jones BR, Kenzik K, Merrill AL, et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on delays to breast cancer surgery: ripples or waves? Ann Surg Oncol. (2023) 30:6093–103. doi: 10.1245/s10434-023-13878-6

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

44. Losurdo A, Lisa AVE, Tomatis M, Ponti A, Montemezzi S, Bonzano E, et al. Highly specialized Breast Centers did not experience delay of care during COVID-19 pandemic in Italy: the Senonetwork experience. Breast Cancer Res Treat. (2022) 196:87–95. doi: 10.1007/s10549-022-06694-1

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

45. Wright GP, Wong JH, Morgan JW, Roy-Chowdhury S, Kazanjian K, and Lum SS. Time from diagnosis to surgical treatment of breast cancer: Factors influencing delays in initiating treatment. Am Surg. (2010) 76:1119–22. doi: 10.1177/000313481007601022

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

46. De Melo Gagliato D, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Lei X, Theriault RL, Giordano SH, Valero V, et al. Clinical impact of delaying initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. (2014) 32:735–44. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.49.7693

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

47. Babatunde OA, Eberth JM, Felder TM, Moran R, Hughes-Halbert C, Truman S, et al. Racial disparities and diagnosis-to-treatment time among patients diagnosed with breast cancer in South Carolina. J Racial Ethn Heal Disparities. (2022) 9:124–34. doi: 10.1007/s40615-020-00935-z

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

48. Hoppe EJ, Hussain LR, Grannan KJ, Dunki-Jacobs EM, Lee DY, and Wexelman BA. Racial disparities in breast cancer persist despite early detection: analysis of treatment of stage 1 breast cancer and effect of insurance status on disparities. Breast Cancer Res Treat. (2019) 173:597–602. doi: 10.1007/s10549-018-5036-z

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

49. Sukniam K, Kasbi AA, Mohammed ALI, Popp K, Attwood K, George A, et al. Disparities in time to treatment for breast cancer. Anticancer Res. (2022) 42:5813–8. doi: 10.21873/anticanres.16088

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

50. Alves MNT, Monteiro M, de FV, Alves FT, and Dos Santos Figueiredo FW. Determinants of lack of access to treatment for women diagnosed with breast cancer in Brazil. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2022) 19:7635. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19137635

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

51. Ferreira NAS, Schoueri JHM, Sorpreso ICE, Adami F, and Figueiredo FWDS. Waiting time between breast cancer diagnosis and treatment in Brazilian women: An analysis of cases from 1998 to 2012. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2020) 17:1–10. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17114030

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

52. Pittell H, Calip GS, Pierre A, Ryals CA, and Guadamuz JS. Racialized economic segregation and inequities in treatment initiation and survival among patients with metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. (2024) 206:411–23. doi: 10.1007/s10549-024-07319-5

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

53. Nicholson WK, Silverstein M, Wong JB, Barry MJ, Chelmow D, Coker TR, et al. Screening for breast cancer: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. Jama. (2024) 331:1918–30. doi: 10.1001/jama.2024.5534

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

54. Zaveri S and Romanoff A. ASO author reflections on “Racial disparities in time to treatment persist in the setting of a comprehensive breast center. Ann Surg Oncol. (2022) 29:6704. doi: 10.1245/s10434-022-12024-y

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

55. US Preventive Services Task Force. Addressing systemic racism through clinical preventive service recommendations from the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. (2021) 325(7):627–628. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.26188

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

56. Walsh R, Lofters A, Groome P, Moineddin R, Krzyzanowska M, Griffiths R, et al. Wait times and breast cancer survival: a population-based retrospective cohort study using CanIMPACT data. Cancer Causes Control. (2024) 35:1245–57. doi: 10.1007/s10552-024-01879-z

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar