Socio-demographic characteristics
A total of 255 woman who diagnosed for breast cancer participated with a response rate of 97.70%. Majority of the respondents 219 (85.9%) were married and 183 (71.8%) were urban dwellers. Fifty-nine (23.1%) had no formal education. Nearly half 138 (54.1%) of the participants were house wives and 94 (36.9%) were employed (involved in government employee, private employee and private business). The average of parity (±Standard Deviation) was 3.3 (±2.03), and majority 215 (84.3%) of the women were multi-para. Sixty women (23.5%) earned below average household monthly income, (below 1050 ETB) (Table 1).
Table 1: Socio demographic characters of woman who diagnosed for breast cancer among who visit oncology department in HUCRCH in Hawassa city, Southern Ethiopia, 2020.
Variables
|
Freq.
|
(%)
|
Age
|
|
|
25-29
|
8
|
(3.1)
|
30-34
|
19
|
(7.5)
|
35-39
|
55
|
(21.6)
|
40-44
|
60
|
(23.5)
|
45-49
|
45
|
(17.6)
|
≥50
|
68
|
(26.7)
|
Residence
|
|
|
Urban
|
183
|
(71.8)
|
Rural
|
72
|
(28.2)
|
Marital status
|
|
|
Married
|
219
|
(85.9)
|
Divorced
|
10
|
(3.9)
|
Separated
|
9
|
(3.5)
|
Widowed
|
14
|
(5.5)
|
Single
|
3
|
(1.2)
|
Educational status
|
|
|
No formal education
|
59
|
(23.1)
|
Elementary
|
84
|
(32.9)
|
High school
|
47
|
(18.4)
|
College and above
|
44
|
(17.3)
|
First degree and above
|
21
|
(8.2)
|
Occupational status
|
|
|
House wife
|
138
|
(54.1)
|
Employed
|
94
|
(36.9)
|
Farmer
|
14
|
(5.5)
|
Daily laborer
|
1
|
(0.4)
|
Merchant
|
8
|
(3.1)
|
Household monthly income
|
|
|
≤ 1050 ETB
|
60
|
(23.5)
|
1051- 3342 ETB
|
131
|
(51.4)
|
> 3342 ETB
|
64
|
(25.1)
|
Distance to oncology center
|
|
|
≤ 6 hours
|
143
|
(56.1)
|
6 - 12 hours
|
63
|
(24.7)
|
More than days
|
49
|
(19.2)
|
Employed: Government/ Civil servant + Non-Government employee,
Income according to WB (1$, 1.9$, 3.15$/day), while (1$=34.95ETB, 2020)
Patient’s History and patient related determinant
Out of 255 patients who attend health facilities, 253 (99.2%) and 221 (86.7%) were reported that they got consulted before being referred from hospital & specialized clinic, respectively. Out of reported cases, 100 (39.2%) on the right breast and 138 (54.1%) were had on the left breast. Regarding the lymph node status, 119 (46.7%) were documented and reported as Positive, on other hand 114 (44.7%) also had one up to three lymph node involvement. Only 4 (1.6%) of the participants had history of ever smoke cigarettes. More than half 142 (55.7%) of the respondents were diagnosed breast cancer post-menopausal. Majority 214 (83.9%) of the women breastfed their baby for more than two years and 174 (68.2%) had history of contraceptive use.As figure shows below the majority of the study participants currently 97 (38.0%) and 122 (47.8%) were on stage III and VI, respectively. While, only 3 (1.2%) were on stage II according to the TNM-Modified current stages of diagnosis (FIGO) (Figure 1).
Patient’s diagnostic pathway and reasons for delay
Out of 255 women who had breast biopsy, 111 (43.5%) infiltrating ductal carcinoma and 94 (36.9%) were ductal carcinoma in situ by histological type. In addition to this, 102 (40.0%) were well differentiated & 108 (42.4%) were moderately differentiated on their current grade. On other hand, 215 (84.3%) who had surgical margin were not documented/reported. One hundred-two (40.0%) had surgery and chemotherapy and hormonal therapy (Table 3). Regarding to delay; 135 (52.9%) patient delay more than 60 days by their own reasons and 150 (58.8%) referral delay, 163 (63.9%) health care provider’s (HCP) delay and 203 (79.6%) were diagnostic results waiting time for more than 7 days. The major reasons for delay were claimed; 121 (55.5%) were wait longer than 8 weeks between their presentation and final diagnosis, 152 (69.1%) were report lack of cash money at that time, 40 (18.2%) no health facilities or temporary relief from itself and 16 (7.3%) perceived that the cancer had no cure. On other hand regarding to the health facility, 179 (81.4%), 143 (65.0%) and 124 (56.4%) were complains that they delay due to the waiting time in the reception, waiting time to see a doctor and no appropriate physician, respectively (Table 2).
Table 2: Reasons for delay among the woman who diagnosed for breast cancer among who visit oncology department in HUCRCH in Hawassa city, Southern Ethiopia, 2020. (n=220)
Variables
|
Freq.
|
(%)
|
Above 8wks lag b/n presentation & Dx
|
|
|
Yes
|
121
|
(55.5)
|
No
|
97
|
(44.5)
|
The reasons for late presentation
|
|
|
Lack of cash money at that time
|
152
|
(69.1)
|
No health facilities
|
16
|
(7.3)
|
Thinking that cancer was not be cured
|
40
|
(18.2)
|
Temporary relief by the lesion itself
|
12
|
(5.5)
|
Waiting time in the reception
|
|
|
Yes
|
179
|
(81.4)
|
No
|
41
|
(18.6)
|
Waiting time to see a doctor
|
|
|
Yes
|
143
|
(65.0)
|
No
|
77
|
(35.0)
|
Lack of appropriate attention
|
|
|
Yes
|
124
|
(56.4)
|
No
|
96
|
(43.6)
|
Being busy
|
|
|
Yes
|
132
|
(60.0)
|
No
|
88
|
(40.0)
|
Patient delay
|
|
|
≤ 60 days
|
120
|
(47.1%)
|
> 60 days
|
135
|
(52.9%)
|
Health care provider’s (HCP) delay
|
|
|
≤7 days
|
92
|
(36.1%)
|
>7 days
|
163
|
(63.9%)
|
Referral delay
|
|
|
≤7 days
|
105
|
(41.2%)
|
>7 days
|
150
|
(58.8%)
|
Diagnostic waiting time
|
|
|
≤7 days
|
63
|
(24.7%)
|
>7 days
|
192
|
(75.3%)
|
The Prevalence of Late Diagnosis of Breast Cancer
The prevalence of late diagnosis of breast cancer among woman was 220 (86.3%) [95% CI: 81.7–90.1], at visit oncology department at HUCRCH (Figure 2).
Factors associated with late diagnosis of breast cancer
In the bivariable logistic regression model, the analysis factors that had an association with late diagnosis of breast cancer were; advice for breast biopsy, residence, educational status, ever heard about mammography test, immediately share the problem to others, family history of cancer, menopausal status, and using traditional and faith healers as first choice. In the multivariate logistic regression analysis model; having no initial advice for breast biopsy, not sharing one’s problem immediately to others, and using traditional healers or/and faith healers as first choice of treatments were significantly associated with late diagnosis of breast cancer.
Accordingly, the woman who had no initial advice for breast biopsy were 5 times more likely diagnosed at late stage [AOR=5.1, 95% (CI=1.4-18.9)] as compared with who had initial advised for breast biopsy. The women who did not share their problem immediately to others were 4.7 times more likely diagnosed at late stage with [AOR=4.7, 95% (CI=1.8-12.2)] as compared with who could share their problem with their family, husband and others. The study participants who use traditional and faith healers as first choice were also about three time more likely diagnosed at late stage [AOR=3.3, 95% (CI=1.2- 8.8)] as compared with their counterparts (Table 3)
Table 3: Bivariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis late diagnosis of breast cancer among woman at HUCSH in Hawassa city, Southern Ethiopia, 2020.
|
Late diagnosis of BCa
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
No
|
|
|
|
Freq. (%)
|
Freq. (%)
|
COR (95%CI)
|
AOR (95%CI)
|
P-Value
|
Advice for breast biopsy
|
|
|
|
|
|
No
|
8
|
(57.1)
|
6
|
(42.9)
|
1
|
1
|
|
Yes
|
212
|
(88.0)
|
29
|
(12.0)
|
5.48(1.78, 16.93)
|
5.13(1.39, 18.90)
|
0.014*
|
Residence
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Urban
|
153
|
(83.6)
|
30
|
(16.4)
|
1
|
1
|
|
Rural
|
67
|
(93.1)
|
5
|
(6.9)
|
2.63(0.98, 7.07)
|
2.17(0.74, 6.43)
|
0.160
|
Educational status
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No formal education
|
53
|
(89.8)
|
6
|
(10.2)
|
2.04(0.77, 5.37)
|
1.42(0.38, 5.29)
|
0.601
|
Elementary
|
76
|
(90.5)
|
8
|
(9.5)
|
2.19(0.92, 5.23)
|
1.44(0.40, 5.21)
|
0.578
|
High school and above
|
91
|
(81.3)
|
21
|
(18.8)
|
1
|
1
|
|
Ever heard about mammography test
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
63
|
(79.7)
|
16
|
(20.3)
|
1
|
1
|
|
No
|
157
|
(89.2)
|
19
|
(10.8)
|
2.10(1.02, 4.34)
|
2.02(0.83, 4.90)
|
0.122
|
Immediately share the problem to others
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
115
|
(81.0)
|
27
|
(19.0)
|
1
|
1
|
|
No
|
105
|
(92.9)
|
8
|
(7.1)
|
3.08(1.34, 7.08)
|
4.72(1.83, 12.17)
|
0.001*
|
Family history of cancer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
18
|
(75.0)
|
6
|
(25.0)
|
1
|
1
|
|
No
|
202
|
(87.4)
|
29
|
(12.6)
|
2.32(0.85, 6.33)
|
2.28(0.74, 7.02)
|
0.153
|
Menopausal status
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pre-menopausal
|
117
|
(82.4)
|
25
|
(17.6)
|
1
|
1
|
|
Post-menopausal
|
103
|
(91.2)
|
10
|
(8.8)
|
2.20(1.01, 4.80)
|
1.75(0.63, 4.91)
|
0.285
|
Using traditional and faith healers as first choice
|
|
|
|
|
No
|
138
|
(82.6)
|
29
|
(17.4)
|
1
|
1
|
|
Yes
|
82
|
(93.2)
|
6
|
(6.8)
|
2.87(1.14, 7.21)
|
3.29(1.23, 8.80)
|
0.017*
|
NB; * P-value < 0.05, was statistically significant, 1= Reference, AOR= Adjusted Odds Ratio, COR= Crude Odds Ratio, CI= Confidence Interval.