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.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventional studies assessing quality improvement processes, interventions, and structure in developing country surgical systems was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies were included if they were conducted in an LMIC, occurred in a surgical setting, and measured the effect of an implementation and its impact. The primary outcome was mortality, and secondary outcomes were rates of rates of hospital-acquired infection (HAI) and surgical site infections (SSI). Prospero Registration: CRD42020171542.
RESULT: Of 38,273 search results, 31 studies were included in a qualitative synthesis, and 28 articles were included in a meta-analysis. Implementation of multimodal bundled interventions reduced the incidence of HAI by a relative risk (RR) of 0.39 (95%CI 0.26 to 0.59), the effect of hand hygiene interventions on HAIs showed a non-significant effect of RR of 0.69 (0.46-1.05). The WHO Safe Surgery Checklist reduced mortality by RR 0.68 (0.49 to 0.95) and SSI by RR 0.50 (0.33 to 0.63) and antimicrobial stewardship interventions reduced SSI by RR 0.67 (0.48-0.93).
CONCLUSION: There is evidence that a number of quality improvement processes, interventions and structural changes can improve mortality, HAI and SSI outcomes in the peri-operative setting in LMICs.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventional studies assessing quality improvement processes, interventions, and structure in developing country trauma systems was conducted from November 1989 to August 2020 according to the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies were included if they were conducted in an LMIC population according to World Bank Income Classification, occurred in a trauma setting, and measured the effect of implementation and its impact. The primary outcome was trauma mortality.
RESULTS: Of 37,575 search results, 30 studies were included from 15 LMICs covering five WHO regions in a qualitative synthesis. Twenty-seven articles were included in a meta-analysis. Implementing a pre-hospital trauma system reduced overall trauma mortality by 45% (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% CI 0.4 to 0.75). Training first responders resulted in an overall decrease in mortality (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.78). In-hospital trauma training with certified courses resulted in a reduction of mortality (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.78). Trauma audits and trauma protocols resulted in varying improvements in trauma mortality.
CONCLUSION: There is evidence that quality improvement processes, interventions, and structure can improve mortality in the trauma systems in LMICs.
METHODOLOGY: Patients suitable for BCS who were treated with IORT between January 2016 and June 2019 from three centres were analysed. They were divided into low-risk and high-risk groups based on the risk of recurrence according to the TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy (TARGIT) A and B study criteria. Outcomes of interest included local recurrence, wound complications, and radiation toxicity, with a subset analysed for cosmetic and patient-reported outcomes.
RESULTS: Within a median follow-up of 31 months, there were 104 and 211 patients in the low- and high-risk groups, respectively. No significant difference was observed in local recurrence rates (low-risk, 1.0% vs. high-risk, 1.4%; p = 1.000). Both cohorts exhibited low frequencies of severe wound complications ranging between 1.4 and 1.9%. No major radiation toxicities were reported in either group. In the subgroup analysis, low-risk patients had significantly better mean scores in the subscales of inframammary fold and scar. Based on the BREAST-Q patient-reported outcomes questionnaire, seven out of nine parameters were scored similarly between both groups with no significant difference.
CONCLUSION: This study showed that the use of IORT in both low- and high-risk early breast cancers is efficacious and safe with low recurrence rates and an acceptable toxicity profile.
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.