METHODS: A multi-center, prospective colonoscopy study involving 16 Asia-Pacific regions was performed from 2008 to 2015. Consecutive self-referred CRC screening participants aged 40-70 years were recruited, and each subject received one direct optical colonoscopy. The prevalence of CRC, ACN, and colorectal adenoma was compared among subjects with different FDRs affected using Pearson's χ2 tests. Binary logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the risk of these lesions, controlling for recognized risk factors including age, gender, smoking habits, alcohol drinking, body mass index, and the presence of diabetes mellitus.
RESULTS: Among 11,797 asymptomatic subjects, the prevalence of CRC was 0.6% (none: 0.6%; siblings: 1.1%; mother: 0.5%; father: 1.2%; ≥2 members: 3.1%, P<0.001), that of ACN was 6.5% (none: 6.1%; siblings: 8.3%; mother: 7.7%; father: 8.7%; ≥2 members: 9.3%, P<0.001), and that of colorectal adenoma was 29.3% (none: 28.6%; siblings: 33.5%; mother: 31.8%; father: 31.1%; ≥2 members: 38.1%, P<0.001). In multivariate regression analyses, subjects with at least one FDR affected were significantly more likely to have CRC (adjusted odds ratio (AOR)=2.02-7.89), ACN (AOR=1.55-2.06), and colorectal adenoma (AOR=1.31-1.92) than those without a family history. The risk of CRC (AOR=0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-2.35, P=0.830), ACN (AOR=1.07, 95% CI 0.75-1.52, P=0.714), and colorectal adenoma (AOR=0.96, 95% CI 0.78-1.19, P=0.718) in subjects with either parent affected was similar to that of subjects with their siblings affected.
CONCLUSIONS: The risk of colorectal neoplasia was similar among subjects with different FDRs affected. These findings do not support the need to discriminate proband identity in screening participants with affected FDRs when their risks of colorectal neoplasia were estimated.
Results: We have established a plant version of a Förster resonance energy transfer (FRET) probe called Ras and interacting protein chimeric unit (Raichu) that can successfully monitor activation of the rice small GTPase OsRac1 during various defence responses in cells. Here, we describe the protocol for visualizing spatiotemporal activity of plant Rac/ROP GTPase in living plant cells, transfection of rice protoplasts with Raichu-OsRac1 and acquisition of FRET images.
Conclusions: Our protocol should be adaptable for monitoring activation for other plant small GTPases and protein-protein interactions for other FRET sensors in various plant cells.
Methods: This study employed a qualitative design. Semi-structured interviews (n = 20) were conducted with key opinion leaders from 14 countries. The participants were predominantly members of the International COVID-19 and Cancer Taskforce, who convened in March 2020 to address delivery of cancer care in the context of the pandemic. The Framework Method was employed to analyse the positive changes of the pandemic with corresponding challenges to their maintenance post-pandemic.
Results: Ten themes of positive changes were identified which included: value in cancer care, digital communication, convenience, inclusivity and cooperation, decentralisation of cancer care, acceleration of policy change, human interactions, hygiene practices, health awareness and promotion and systems improvement. Impediments to the scale-up of these positive changes included resource disparities and variation in legal frameworks across regions. Barriers were largely attributed to behaviours and attitudes of stakeholders.
Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to important value-based innovations and changes for better cancer care across different health systems. The challenges to maintaining/implementing these changes vary by setting. Efforts are needed to implement improved elements of care that evolved during the pandemic.
METHODS: We reviewed published literature on breast cancer control among 21 ANCCA countries from May to July 2023 to establish data availability and compiled the latest descriptive statistics and sources of the indicators using a standardised data collection form. We performed bivariate Pearson's correlation analysis to measure the strength of correlation between stage at diagnosis, mortality and survival rates, and universal health coverage.
FINDINGS: Only 12 (57%) ANCCA member countries published national cancer registry reports on breast cancer age-standardised incidence rate (ASIR) and age-standardised mortality rate (ASMR). Indonesia, Myanmar, and Nepal had provincial data and others relied on WHO's Global Cancer Observatory (GLOBOCAN) estimates. GLOBOCAN data differed from the reported national statistics by 5-10% in Bhutan, Indonesia, Iran, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, and Thailand and >10% in China, India, Malaysia, Mongolia, and Sri Lanka. The proportion of patients diagnosed in stages I and II strongly correlated with the five-year survival rate and with the universal health coverage (UHC) index. Three countries (14%) reported national data with >60% of invasive breast cancer patients diagnosed at stages I and II, and a five-year survival rate of >80%. Over 60% of the ANCCA countries had no published national data on breast cancer staging, the time interval from presentation to diagnosis, and diagnosis to treatment. Five (24%) countries reported data on treatment completion. The definition of delayed diagnosis and treatment completion varied across countries.
INTERPRETATION: GBCI's Pillar 1 KPI correlates strongly with five-year survival rate and with the UHC index. Most ANCCA countries lacked national data on cancer staging, timely diagnosis, and treatment completion KPIs. While institutional-level data were available in some countries, they may not represent the nationwide status. Strengthening cancer surveillance is crucial for effective breast cancer control. The GBCI Framework indicators warrant more detailed definitions for standardised data collection. Surrogate indicators which are measurable and manageable in country-specific settings, could be considered for monitoring GBCI indicators. Ensuring UHC and addressing health inequalities are essential to early diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer.
FUNDING: Funding for this research article's processing fee (APC) will be provided by the affiliated institution to support the open-access publication of this work. The funding body is not involved in the study design; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of data; or the decision to submit for publication. The funding body will be informed of any planned publications, and documentation provided.
METHODS: We collected data from 7954 asymptomatic subjects (age, 50-75 y) who received screening colonoscopy examinations at 14 sites in Asia. We randomly assigned 5303 subjects to the derivation cohort and the remaining 2651 to the validation cohort. We collected data from the derivation cohort on age, sex, family history of colorectal cancer, smoking, drinking, body mass index, medical conditions, and use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or aspirin. Associations between the colonoscopic findings of APN and each risk factor were examined using the Pearson χ2 test, and we assigned each participant a risk score (0-15), with scores of 0 to 3 as average risk and scores of 4 or higher as high risk. The scoring system was tested in the validation cohort. We used the Cochran-Armitage test of trend to compare the prevalence of APN among subjects in each group.
RESULTS: In the validation cohort, 79.5% of patients were classified as average risk and 20.5% were classified as high risk. The prevalence of APN in the average-risk group was 1.9% and in the high-risk group was 9.4% (adjusted relative risk, 5.08; 95% CI, 3.38-7.62; P < .001). The score included age (61-70 y, 3; ≥70 y, 4), smoking habits (current/past, 2), family history of colorectal cancer (present in a first-degree relative, 2), and the presence of neoplasia in the distal colorectum (nonadvanced adenoma 5-9 mm, 2; advanced neoplasia, 7). The c-statistic of the score was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.68-0.79), and for distal findings alone was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.60-0.74). The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test statistic was greater than 0.05, indicating the reliability of the validation set. The number needed to refer was 11 (95% CI, 10-13), and the number needed to screen was 15 (95% CI, 12-17).
CONCLUSIONS: We developed and validated a scoring system to identify persons at risk for APN. Screening participants who undergo flexible sigmoidoscopy screening with a score of 4 points or higher should undergo colonoscopy evaluation.
METHODS: The two entities organised a combined symposium and post-meeting interactions among representatives of major cancer centres from seventeen Asian countries to outlining major challenges and countermeasures.
RESULTS: Participating stakeholders distilled five big questions. 1) "Will there be an explosion of late-stage cancers after the pandemic?" To address and recover from perceived delayed prevention, screening, treatment and care challenges, collaboration of key stakeholders in the region and alignment in cancer care management, policy intervention and cancer registry initiatives would be of essential value. 2) "Operations and Finance" The pandemic has resulted in significant material and financial casualties. Flagged acute challenges (shortages of supplies, imposition of lockdown) as well as longer-standing reduction of financial revenue, manpower, international collaboration, and training should also be addressed. 3) "Will telemedicine and technological innovations revolutionize cancer care?" Deploying and implementing telemedicine such as teleconsultation and virtual tumour boards were considered invaluable. These innovations could become a new regular practice, leading to expansion of tele-collaboration through collaboration of institutions in the region. 4) "Will virtual conferences continue after the pandemic?" Virtual conferences during the pandemic have opened new doors for knowledge sharing, especially for representatives of low- and middle-income countries in the region, while saving time and costs of travel. 5) "How do we prepare for the next pandemic or international emergency?" Roadmaps for action to improve access to appropriate patient care and research were identified and scrutinised.
CONCLUSION: Through addressing these five big questions, focused collaboration among members and with international organisations such as City Cancer Challenge will allow enhanced preparedness for future international emergencies.
.