Person:
Bychkovsky, Brittany

Profile Picture

Email Address

AA Acceptance Date

Birth Date

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Job Title

Last Name

Bychkovsky

First Name

Brittany

Name

Bychkovsky, Brittany
Author's Publications: search.filters.isAuthorOfPublication.e3e8a085-544a-48c0-a01c-c78bd78a7fa0

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Cancer Pathology Turnaround Time at Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital, the Largest Referral Center in Malawi for Oncology Patients
    (American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2017) Masamba, Leo P.L.; Mtonga, Petani E.; Kalilani Phiri, Linda; Bychkovsky, Brittany
    Purpose In all settings, a need exists for expedited pathology processing for patients with a suspected cancer diagnosis. In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) with limited resources, processing pathology samples is particularly challenging, so the measurement of turnaround times (TATs) for pathology results is an important quality metric. We explored the pathology TAT for suspected cancer patients at Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital in Malawi to determine whether a difference exists when patients paid an out-of-pocket fee (paid for [PF] v nonpaid for [NPF]) to facilitate sample processing. Methods and Population This retrospective descriptive study included all patients with suspected cancer (N = 544) who underwent incisional and excisional biopsy in 2010 at Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital, a teaching hospital in Malawi. Data were abstracted from patient charts and administrative forms to build a database and determine the TAT for PF and NPF samples. Results: The median TAT for the 544 patients was 71 days (interquartile range [IQR], 31 to 118 days). The median pathology processing time was 31 days (IQR, 15 to 52 days) and was shorter for PF versus NPF samples. The median TAT was 43 days for PF samples (IQR, 27 to 69 days) versus 101 days for NPF samples (IQR, 31 to 118 days), which was significantly different by the Wilcoxon rank sum test (P < .01). Conclusion: The TAT for pathology samples among patients with suspected cancer was longer than reported for other African countries during the study period, was longer than considered acceptable in high-income countries, and differed between PF and NPF samples.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Efficacy of Anti-HER2 Agents in Combination With Adjuvant or Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Early and Locally Advanced HER2-Positive Breast Cancer Patients: A Network Meta-Analysis
    (Frontiers Media S.A., 2018) Debiasi, Márcio; Polanczyk, Carisi A.; Ziegelmann, Patrícia; Barrios, Carlos; Cao, Hongyuan; Dignam, James J.; Goss, Paul; Bychkovsky, Brittany; Finkelstein, Dianne; Guindalini, Rodrigo S.; Filho, Paulo; Albuquerque, Caroline; Reinert, Tomás; de Azambuja, Evandro; Olopade, Olufunmilayo
    Background: Several (neo)adjuvant treatments for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer have been compared in different randomized clinical trials. Since it is not feasible to conduct adequate pairwise comparative trials of all these therapeutic options, network meta-analysis offers an opportunity for more detailed inference for evidence-based therapy. Methods: Phase II/III randomized clinical trials comparing two or more different (neo)adjuvant treatments for HER2-positive breast cancer patients were included. Relative treatment effects were pooled in two separate network meta-analyses for overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Results: 17 clinical trials met our eligibility criteria. Two different networks of trials were created based on the availability of the outcomes: OS network (15 trials: 37,837 patients); and DFS network (17 trials: 40,992 patients). Two studies—the ExteNET and the NeoSphere trials—were included only in this DFS network because OS data have not yet been reported. The concept of the dual anti-HER2 blockade proved to be the best option in terms of OS and DFS. Chemotherapy (CT) plus trastuzumab (T) and lapatinib (L) and CT + T + Pertuzumab (P) are probably the best treatment options in terms of OS, with 62.47% and 22.06%, respectively. In the DFS network, CT + T + Neratinib (N) was the best treatment option with 50.55%, followed by CT + T + P (26.59%) and CT + T + L (20.62%). Conclusion: This network meta-analysis suggests that dual anti-HER2 blockade with trastuzumab plus either lapatinib or pertuzumab are probably the best treatment options in the (neo)adjuvant setting for HER2-positive breast cancer patients in terms of OS gain. Mature OS results are still expected for the Aphinity trial and for the sequential use of trastuzumab followed by neratinib, the treatment that showed the best performance in terms of DFS in our analysis.