MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study on adolescents aged 13-18 years old. Upon ethical clearance obtained from UMMC Medical Ethics Committee, patients with colorectal, breast or lung cancer and their adolescent children were recruited from the Clinical Oncology Unit of University of Malaya Medical Centre. Respondents who gave consent completed a demographic questionnaire and the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory, via the post, email, home visit or meetings at the clinics.
RESULTS: 95 adolescents from 50 families responded, giving a response rate of 88 percent. The adolescent's mean age was 16 years (ranging between 13-18 years). Adolescents with parental cancer had the lowest mean score in emotional functioning (p<0.05). Male adolescents had significantly higher quality of life overall and in physical functioning compared to female adolescents. Adolescents with a father with cancer had better school functioning compared to adolescents whose mothers had cancer. Families with household income of RM 5000 and above have significantly better quality of life compared to families with lower household income.
CONCLUSIONS: Adolescent sons and daughters of parents with a cancer diagnosis show lowered QOL, particularly with reference to emotional functioning and school performance. Addressing the needs of this young group has been slow and warrants special attention. Revisiting the risk and resilience factors of adolescents might also inform tailored programs to address the needs of this neglected adolescent population.
METHODS: A systematic search for studies concerning the perception of financial burden among cancer patients and their families was conducted. Several electronic resources such as Medline, Elsevier (Science Direct), Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL and Scopus (SciVerse) were searched. Additionally, manual search through indices citation was also thoroughly utilized. The main outcome of interest was the prevalence of perceived financial hardship among cancer patients and their families. Studies reported only the cost of cancer treatment and qualitative studies were excluded. Our search was limited to articles that were published from 2003 to 2013.
RESULT: Ten studies were included in this review and with a majority originating from high-income countries. The prevalence of the financial burden perception was reported between 14.8 and 78.8 %. The most frequent and significant risk factor reported associated with the perception of financial difficulty was the households with low income. Discontinuation of treatment and poverty were conversely the important consequences of financial burden in cancer patients and their families.
CONCLUSION: Evidently, cancer is a long-term illness that requires a high financial cost, and a significant number of cancer patients and families struggle with financial difficulty. Identifying such groups with a high risk of facing financial difficulty is a crucial measure to ensure safety nets are readily available for these targeted population.
METHODS: Data on patient costs were collected prospectively in the first year following diagnosis by using a self-administered questionnaire and telephone interviews at three time points for all four stages of colorectal cancer. The patient cost data consisted of direct out-of-pocket payments for medical-related expenses such as hospital stays, tests and treatment and for non-medical items such as travel and food associated with hospital visits. In addition, indirect cost data related to the loss of productivity of the patient and caregiver(s) was assessed. The patient's perceived level of financial difficulty and types of coping strategy were also explored.
RESULT: The total 1-year patient cost (both direct and indirect) increased with the stage of colorectal cancer: RM 6544.5 (USD 2045.1) for stage I, RM 7790.1 (USD 2434.4) for stage II, RM 8799.1 (USD 2749.7) for stage III and RM 8638.2 (USD 2699.4) for stage IV. The majority of patients perceived paying for their healthcare as somewhat difficult. The most frequently used financial coping strategy was a combination of current income and savings.
CONCLUSION: Despite the high subsidisation in public hospitals, the management of colorectal cancer imposes a substantial financial burden on patients and their families. Moreover, the majority of patients and their families perceive healthcare payments as difficult. Therefore, it is recommended that policy- and decision-makers should further consider some financial protection strategies and support for cancer treatment because cancer is a very costly and chronic disease.
Methods: A combination of top-down approach and activity-based costing was applied. The standard operating procedure (SOP) for CRC was developed for each stage according to national data and guidelines at the University of Malaya Medical Centre (UMMC). The unit cost was calculated and incorporated into the treatment pathway in order to obtain the total cost of managing a single CRC patient according to the stage of illness. The cost data were represented by means and standard deviation and the results were demonstrated by tabulation. All cost data are presented in Malaysian Ringgit (RM). The cost difference between early stage (Stage I) and late stage (Stage II-IV) was analysed using independent t-test.
Results: The cost per patient increased with stage of CRC, from RM13,672 (USD4,410.30) for stage I, to RM27,972 (USD9,023.20) for Stage IV. The early stage had statistically significant lower cost compared to late stage t(2) = -4.729, P = 0.042. The highest fraction of the cost was related to surgery for Stage I, but was superseded by oncology day care treatment for Stages II-IV. CRC is a costly illness. From a provider perspective, the highest cost was found in Stages III and IV. The early stages conserved more resources than did the advanced stages of cancer.
Conclusion: Early diagnosis and management of CRC, therefore, not only affects oncologic prognosis, but has implications for health care costs. This adds further justification to develop and implement CRC screening programmes in Malaysia.
METHODS: Surgeons in the APFCP completed an Institutional Review Board-approved anonymous e-survey and/or printed letters (for China) containing 19 questions regarding nonsurgical close observation in patients who achieved clinical complete response (cCR) to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT).
RESULTS: Of the 417 responses, 80.8% (n = 337) supported the W&W approach and 65.5% (n = 273) treated patients who achieved cCR after nCRT. Importantly, 78% of participants (n = 326) preferred a selective W&W approach in patients with old age and medical comorbidities who achieved cCR. In regard to restaging methods after nCRT, the majority of respondents based their decision to use W&W on a combination of magnetic resonance imaging results (94.5%, n = 394) with other test results. For interval between nCRT completion and tumor response assessment, most participants used 8 weeks (n = 154, 36.9%), followed by 6 weeks (n = 127, 30.5%) and 4 weeks (n = 102, 24.5%). In response to the question of how often responders followed-up after W&W, the predominant period was every 3 months (209 participants, 50.1%) followed by every 2 months (75 participants, 18.0%). If local regrowth was found during follow-up, most participants (79.9%, n = 333) recommended radical surgery as an initial management.
CONCLUSION: The W&W approach is supported by 80% of Asia-Pacific surgeons and is practiced at 65%, although heterogeneous hospital or society protocols are also observed. These results inform oncologists of future clinical study participation.