Opportunities for Filling Gaps in Breast and Lung Cancer Outcomes Research

Jon C. Schommer, Jose William Castellanos, Luz Dalia Sanchez, Samuel Wagner, Xin Ye

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


The purpose of this study was to describe reported research regarding breast and lung cancer outcomes in terms of (a) level of impact, (b) survival outcomes, (c) quality-of-life outcomes, (A) mental health outcomes, (e) cost outcomes, and (f) satisfaction outcomes. In addition, we describe the impact that type of cancer (breast or lung), year of publication (1999 to 2003), drug intervention (yes or no), surgical intervention (yes or no), and study type (clinical trial, cohort study, or other) had on the outcomes we studied. A total of 2,993 articles were identified and reviewed, with 1,470 (49.1%) of these articles related to breast cancer outcomes and 1,523 (50.9%) articles related to lung cancer outcomes. The majority (85%) of the articles we reviewed were coded as having only level 1 impact (adds to the knowledge base only). Logistic regression analysis revealed that lung cancer studies were more likely than breast cancer studies to have outcomes at a level of impact greater than level 1 and to focus on survival outcomes. However, breast cancer studies were more likely than lung cancer studies to focus on quality of life, mental health, and satisfaction. The results identified areas of inquiry for which researchers could provide more comprehensive investigation to fill potential gaps in breast and lung cancer outcomes research.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)335-344
Number of pages10
JournalTherapeutic Innovation and Regulatory Science
Issue number4
StatePublished - 2005


  • Breast cancer
  • Cost
  • Lung cancer
  • Patient outcomes
  • Quality of life
  • Satisfaction
  • Survival

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Opportunities for Filling Gaps in Breast and Lung Cancer Outcomes Research'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this