METHODS: All 5616 patients, diagnosed with breast cancer in University Malaya Medical Centre from 1999 to 2013 were included. In 945 elderly patients (aged 65 years and above), multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with treatment, following adjustment for age, ethnicity, tumor, and other treatment characteristics. The impact of lack of treatment on survival of the elderly was assessed while accounting for comorbidities.
RESULTS: One in five elderly patients had comorbidities. Compared to younger patients, the elderly had more favorable tumor characteristics, and received less loco-regional treatment and chemotherapy. Within stage I-IIIa elderly breast cancer patients, 10 % did not receive any surgery. These patients were older, more likely to be Malays, have comorbidities, and bigger tumors. In elderlies with indications for adjuvant radiotherapy, no irradiation (30 %) was associated with increasing age, comorbidity, and the absence of systemic therapy. Hormone therapy was optimal, but only 35 % of elderly women with ER negative tumors received chemotherapy. Compared to elderly women who received adequate treatment, those not receiving surgery (adjusted hazard ratio: 2.30, 95 %CI: 1.10-4.79), or radiotherapy (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.56, 95 %CI: 1.10-2.19), were associated with higher mortality. Less than 25 % of the survival discrepancy between elderly women receiving loco-regional treatment and no treatment were attributed to excess comorbidities in untreated patients.
CONCLUSION: While the presence of comorbidities significantly influenced loco-regional treatment decisions in the elderly, it was only able to explain the lower survival rates in untreated patients up to a certain extent, suggesting missed opportunities for treatment.
METHOD: A historical cohort of 986 premenopausal, and 1123 postmenopausal, parous breast cancer patients diagnosed from 2001 to 2012 in University Malaya Medical Centre were included in the analyses. Time since LCB was categorized into quintiles. Multivariable Cox regression was used to determine whether time since LCB was associated with survival following breast cancer, adjusting for demographic, tumor, and treatment characteristics.
RESULTS: Premenopausal breast cancer patients with the most recent childbirth (LCB quintile 1) were younger, more likely to present with unfavorable prognostic profiles and had the lowest 5-year overall survival (OS) (66.9; 95% CI 60.2-73.6%), compared to women with longer duration since LCB (quintile 2 thru 5). In univariable analysis, time since LCB was inversely associated with risk of mortality and the hazard ratio for LCB quintile 2, 3, 4, and 5 versus quintile 1 were 0.53 (95% CI 0.36-0.77), 0.49 (95% CI 0.33-0.75), 0.61 (95% CI 0.43-0.85), and 0.64 (95% CI 0.44-0.93), respectively; P trend = 0.016. However, this association was attenuated substantially following adjustment for age at diagnosis and other prognostic factors. Similarly, postmenopausal breast cancer patients with the most recent childbirth were also more likely to present with unfavorable disease profiles. Compared to postmenopausal breast cancer patients in LCB quintile 1, patients in quintile 5 had a higher risk of mortality. This association was not significant following multivariable adjustment.
CONCLUSION: Time since LCB is not independently associated with survival in premenopausal or postmenopausal breast cancers. The apparent increase in risks of mortality in premenopausal breast cancer patients with a recent childbirth, and postmenopausal patients with longer duration since LCB, appear to be largely explained by their age at diagnosis.
METHOD: A total of 2937 newly diagnosed patients with stage I and stage II breast cancer in University Malaya Medical Centre between Jan 1993 to Dec 2012 were included in the study. Multinomial logistic regression analysis allowing death to compete with CBC as a study outcome was used; patients with unilateral breast cancer who were alive were taken as reference. A stepwise backward regression analysis including age at diagnosis, ethnicity, family history of breast cancer, TNM stage, hormonal receptor status, HER2 status, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and hormone therapy was conducted.
RESULTS: Fifty women developed CBC, over a median follow-up of 6 years. The 5- and 10-year cumulative risk of contralateral breast cancer was 1.0% (95% CI 0.6-1.4%) and 2.8% (95% CI 2.0-3.6%), respectively. Young age at diagnosis of first cancer, positive family history, and stage I disease were independent predictors of CBC.
DISCUSSION: The current study suggests that the risk of CBC is very low in a Southeast Asian setting. Any recommendations or practice of CRRM should be reviewed with caution and patients must be counseled appropriately.
METHODOLOGY: The study was designed as a double-blind, randomized controlled trial involving 94 patients who underwent open thyroidectomy or parathyroidectomy in Hospital Pulau Pinang, Malaysia, from November 2015 to November 2016. The study compared the efficacy of pre-incision wound infiltration of diclofenac (n = 47) versus bupivacaine (n = 47) in post-operative pain relief. Wound infiltration is given prior to skin incision. Mean pain score at designated time interval within the 24-h post-operative period, time to first analgesia, total analgesic usage and total analgesic cost were assessed.
RESULTS: Ninety-four patients were recruited with no dropouts. Mean age was 49.3 (SD = 14.2) with majority being female (74.5%). Ethnic distribution recorded 42.6% Chinese, 38.3% Malay, followed by 19.1% Indian. Mean duration of surgery was 123.8 min (SD = 56.5), and mean length of hospital stay was 4.7 days (SD = 1.8). The characteristics of patient in both groups were generally comparable except that there were more cases of total thyroidectomy in the diclofenac group (n = 31) as compared to the bupivacaine group (n = 16). Mean pain score peaked at immediate post-operative period (post-operative 0.5 h) with a score of 3.5 out of 10 and the level decreased steadily over the next 20 h starting from 4 h post-operatively. Pre-incision wound infiltration using diclofenac had better pain control as compared to bupivacaine at all time interval assessed. In the resting state, the mean post-operative pain score difference was statistically significant at 2 h [2.1 (SD = 1.5) vs. 2.8 (SD = 1.8), p = 0.04]. During neck movement, the dynamic pain score difference was statistically significant at post-operative 1 h [2.7 (SD = 1.9) vs. 3.7 (SD = 2.1), p = 0.02]; 2 h [2.7 (SD = 1.6) vs. 3.7 (SD = 2.0), p = 0.01]; 4 h [2.2 (SD = 1.5) vs. 2.9 (SD = 1.7), p = 0.04], 6 h [1.9 (SD = 1.4) vs. 2.5 (SD = 1.6), p = 0.04] and 12 h [1.5 (SD = 1.5) vs. 2.2 (SD = 1.4), p = 0.03]. Mean dose of tramadol used as rescue analgesia in 24 h duration was lower in the diclofenac group as compared to bupivacaine group [13.8 mg (SD = 24.9) vs. 36.2 mg (SD = 45.1), p = 0.01]. The total cost of analgesia used was significantly cheaper in diclofenac group as compared to bupivacaine group [RM 3.47 (SD = 1.51) vs. RM 13.43 (SD = 1.68), p
METHODS: This cross-sectional study of women who underwent DBT and ABUS from December 2019 to March 2022 included opportunistic and targeted screening cases, as well as symptomatic women. Breast density, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System categories and histopathology reports were collected and compared. The PPV3 (proportion of examinations with abnormal findings that resulted in a tissue diagnosis of cancer), biopsy rate (percentage of biopsies performed) and cancer detection yield (number of malignancies found by the diagnostic test given to the study sample) were calculated.
RESULTS: A total of 1089 ABUS examinations were performed (age range: 29-85 y, mean: 51.9 y). Among these were 909 screening (83.5%) and 180 diagnostic (16.5%) examinations. A total of 579 biopsies were performed on 407 patients, with a biopsy rate of 53.2%. There were 100 (9.2%) malignant lesions, 30 (5.2%) atypical/B3 lesions and 414 (71.5%) benign cases. In 9 cases (0.08%), ABUS alone detected malignancies, and in 19 cases (1.7%), DBT alone detected malignancies. The PPV3 in the screening group was 14.6%.
CONCLUSION: ABUS is useful as an adjunct to DBT in the opportunistic screening and diagnostic setting.
METHOD: Variables included in our model are categorized into four pillars: (i) incidence of cases, (ii) reliability of case data, (iii) vaccination, and (iv) variant surveillance. These measures are combined based on weights that reflect their corresponding importance in risk assessment within the context of the pandemic to calculate the risk score for each country. As a validation step, the outcome of the risk stratification from our model is compared against four countries.
RESULTS: Our model is found to have good agreement with these benchmarked risk designations for 27 out of the top 30 countries with the strongest travel ties to Malaysia (90%). Each factor within this model signifies its importance and can be adapted by governing bodies to address the changing needs of border control policies for the recommencement of international travel.
CONCLUSION: In practice, the proposed model provides a turnkey solution for nations to manage transmission risk by enabling stakeholders to make informed, evidence-based decisions to minimize fluctuations of imported cases and serves as a structure to support the improvement, planning, and activation of public health control measures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve focus group discussions (n = 64) were conducted with women with breast cancer from two public and three private hospitals. This study specifically focused on (a) health costs, (b) nonhealth costs, (c) employment and earnings, and (d) financial assistance. Thematic analysis was used.
RESULTS: Financial needs related to cancer treatment and health care varied according to the participant's socioeconomic background and type of medical insurance. Although having medical insurance alleviated cancer treatment-related financial difficulties, limited policy coverage for cancer care and suboptimal reimbursement policies were common complaints. Nonhealth expenditures were also cited as an important source of financial distress; patients from low-income households reported transport and parking costs as troublesome, with some struggling to afford basic necessities, whereas participants from higher-income households mentioned hired help, special food and/or supplements and appliances as expensive needs following cancer. Needy patients had a hard time navigating through the complex system to obtain financial support. Irrespective of socioeconomic status, reductions in household income due to loss of employment and/or earnings were a major source of economic hardship.
CONCLUSION: There are many unmet financial needs following a diagnosis of (breast) cancer even in settings with universal health coverage. Health care professionals may only be able to fulfill these unmet needs through multisectoral collaborations, catalyzed by strong political will.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: As unmet financial needs exist among patients with cancer across all socioeconomic groups, including for patients with medical insurance, financial navigation should be prioritized as an important component of cancer survivorship services, including in the low- and middle-income settings. Apart from assisting survivors to understand the costs of cancer care, navigate the complex system to obtain financial assistance, or file health insurance claims, any planned patient navigation program should also provide support to deal with employment-related challenges and navigate return to work. It is also echoed that costs for essential personal items (e.g., breast prostheses) should be covered by health insurance or subsidized by the government.
METHODS: We used a panel of 34 putative susceptibility genes to perform sequencing on samples from 60,466 women with breast cancer and 53,461 controls. In separate analyses for protein-truncating variants and rare missense variants in these genes, we estimated odds ratios for breast cancer overall and tumor subtypes. We evaluated missense-variant associations according to domain and classification of pathogenicity.
RESULTS: Protein-truncating variants in 5 genes (ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, and PALB2) were associated with a risk of breast cancer overall with a P value of less than 0.0001. Protein-truncating variants in 4 other genes (BARD1, RAD51C, RAD51D, and TP53) were associated with a risk of breast cancer overall with a P value of less than 0.05 and a Bayesian false-discovery probability of less than 0.05. For protein-truncating variants in 19 of the remaining 25 genes, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the odds ratio for breast cancer overall was less than 2.0. For protein-truncating variants in ATM and CHEK2, odds ratios were higher for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive disease than for ER-negative disease; for protein-truncating variants in BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, RAD51C, and RAD51D, odds ratios were higher for ER-negative disease than for ER-positive disease. Rare missense variants (in aggregate) in ATM, CHEK2, and TP53 were associated with a risk of breast cancer overall with a P value of less than 0.001. For BRCA1, BRCA2, and TP53, missense variants (in aggregate) that would be classified as pathogenic according to standard criteria were associated with a risk of breast cancer overall, with the risk being similar to that of protein-truncating variants.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study define the genes that are most clinically useful for inclusion on panels for the prediction of breast cancer risk, as well as provide estimates of the risks associated with protein-truncating variants, to guide genetic counseling. (Funded by European Union Horizon 2020 programs and others.).