METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, data on newly diagnosed patients with cancer were derived from the ASEAN Costs in Oncology (ACTION) cohort study, a prospective longitudinal study in 47 centres located in eight countries in southeast Asia. The ACTION study measured household expenditures on complementary medicine in the immediate year after cancer diagnosis. Participants were given cost diaries at baseline to record illness-related payments that were directly incurred and not reimbursed by insurance over the 12-month period after study recruitment. We assessed incidence of financial catastrophe (out-of-pocket cancer-related costs ≥30% of annual household income), medical impoverishment (reduction in annual household income to below poverty line following subtraction of out-of-pocket cancer-related costs), and economic hardship (inability to make necessary household payments) at 1 year.
FINDINGS: Between March, 2012, and September, 2013, 9513 participants were recruited into the ACTION cohort study, of whom 4754 (50·0%) participants were included in this analysis. Out-of-pocket expenditures on complementary medicine were reported by 1233 households. These payments constituted 8·6% of the annual total out-of-pocket health costs in lower-middle-income countries and 42·9% in upper-middle-income countries. Expenditures on complementary medicine significantly increased risks of financial catastrophe (adjusted odds ratio 1·52 [95% CI 1·23-1·88]) and medical impoverishment (1·75 [1·36-2·24]) at 12 months in upper-middle-income countries only. However, the risks were significantly higher for economically disadvantaged households, irrespective of country income group.
INTERPRETATION: Integration of evidence-supported complementary therapies into mainstream cancer care, along with interventions to address use of non-evidence-based complementary medicine, might help alleviate any associated adverse financial impacts.
FUNDING: None.
METHODS: In October 2018, the BHGI convened the Sixth Global Summit on Improving Breast Healthcare Through Resource-Stratified Phased Implementation. The purpose of the summit was to define a stepwise methodology (phased implementation) for guiding the translation of resource-appropriate breast cancer control guidelines into real-world practice. Three expert consensus panels developed stepwise, resource-appropriate recommendations for implementing these guidelines in low-income and middle-income countries as well as underserved communities in high-income countries. Each panel focused on 1 of 3 specific aspects of breast cancer care: 1) early detection, 2) treatment, and 3) health system strengthening.
RESULTS: Key findings from the summit and subsequent article preparation included the identification of phased-implementation prerequisites that were explored during consensus debates. These core issues and concepts are key components for implementing breast health care that consider real-world resource constraints. Communication and engagement across all levels of care is vital to any effectively operating health care system, including effective communication with ministries of health and of finance, to demonstrate needs, outcomes, and cost benefits.
CONCLUSIONS: Underserved communities at all economic levels require effective strategies to deploy scarce resources to ensure access to timely, effective, and affordable health care. Systematically strategic approaches translating guidelines into practice are needed to build health system capacity to meet the current and anticipated global breast cancer burden.
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: Statistical information about breast cancer was obtained from publicly available cancer registry and mortality databases (such as GLOBOCAN), and supplemented with data requested from individual cancer registries. Rates were directly age-standardised to the Segi World Standard population and trends were analysed using joinpoint models.
RESULTS: Breast cancer was the most common type of cancer among females in the region, accounting for 18% of all cases in 2012, and was the fourth most common cause of cancer-related deaths (9%). Although incidence rates remain much higher in New Zealand and Australia, rapid rises in recent years were observed in several Asian countries. Large increases in breast cancer mortality rates also occurred in many areas, particularly Malaysia and Thailand, in contrast to stabilising trends in Hong Kong and Singapore, while decreases have been recorded in Australia and New Zealand. Mortality trends tended to be more favourable for women aged under 50 compared to those who were 50 years or older.
CONCLUSION: It is anticipated that incidence rates of breast cancer in developing countries throughout the Asia-Pacific region will continue to increase. Early detection and access to optimal treatment are the keys to reducing breast cancer-related mortality, but cultural and economic obstacles persist. Consequently, the challenge is to customise breast cancer control initiatives to the particular needs of each country to ensure the best possible outcomes.
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.
METHODS: Twenty focus group discussions were conducted with 102 Asian patients with cancer from diverse sociodemographic backgrounds. Thematic analysis was performed.
RESULTS: While most participants, especially younger patients with young children, experienced intense emotional distress upon receiving a cancer diagnosis, those with a family history of cancer were relatively calm and resigned. Nonetheless, the prior negative experience with cancer in the family made affected participants with a family history less eager to seek cancer treatment and less hopeful for a cure. Although a majority viewed the presence of family members during the breaking of bad news as important, a minority opted to face it alone to lessen the emotional impact on their family members. Difficulties disclosing the news of a cancer diagnosis to loved ones also emerged as an important need. Sensitive and empathetic patient-physician communication during the breaking of news of a cancer diagnosis was stressed as paramount.
CONCLUSION: A patient-centered communication approach needs to be developed to reduce the emotional distress to patients and their families after the breaking of bad news of a cancer diagnosis. This is expected to positively affect the patients' subsequent coping skills and attitudes toward cancer, which may improve adherence to cancer therapy.
METHOD: Twenty focus group discussions were conducted with 102 cancer patients from diverse ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds. Thematic analyses were performed.
RESULTS: Patient narratives suggested that emotional distress arose from direct and indirect stressors. Direct stressors comprised physical and cognitive side effects of cancer surgery and therapies, and fear of recurrence. Indirect stressors included worry over dependent family members, financial distress following cancer, working with cancer and lack of practical support at home. Distress from altered physical appearances, fear of recurrence and lack of practical support were mainly raised by women, implying that men and women may have disproportionate emotional needs. Emotional support largely came from informal sources including self, family, friends and religion. While formal emotional support from professional counsellors and cancer support groups was acknowledged as important, it appeared to be largely lacking. Unmet needs in coping with fear of recurrence, financial distress, workplace discrimination and household chores were particularly highlighted.
CONCLUSION: The unmet needs revealed in this study provide insights to initiate actionable changes to improve the emotional wellbeing of people living with cancer in settings where cancer survivorship services are still in its infancy.
METHOD: All newly diagnosed breast cancer patients with node-negative and hormone receptor negative tumors measuring≤2cm at the University Malaya Medical Centre (Malaysia) from 1993 to 2013 were included. Mortality of patients with and without adjuvant chemotherapy were compared and adjusted for possible confounders using propensity score.
RESULTS: Of 6732 breast cancer patients, 341 (5.1%) had small (≤2cm), node-negative and hormone receptor negative tumors at diagnosis. Among them, only 214 (62.8%) received adjuvant chemotherapy. Five-year overall survival was 88.1% (95% confidence interval (CI): 82.0%-94.2%) for patients receiving chemotherapy and 89.6% (95% CI: 85.1%-94.1%) for patients without chemotherapy. Chemotherapy was not associated with survival following adjustment for age, ethnicity, tumor size, tumor grade, HER2 status, lympho-vascular invasion, type of surgery and radiotherapy administration. However, chemotherapy was associated with a significant survival advantage (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.35, 95%CI: 0.14-0.91) in a subgroup of women with high-grade tumors.
CONCLUSION: Adjuvant chemotherapy does not appear to be associated with a survival benefit in women with T1N0M0, hormone receptor negative breast cancer except in those with high-grade tumors.
METHODS: Through the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Costs in Oncology study, 1490 newly diagnosed cancer patients were followed-up in Malaysia for 1 year. Health-related quality of life was assessed by using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and EuroQol-5 (EQ-5D) dimension questionnaires at baseline, 3 and 12 months. Psychological distress was assessed by using Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Data were modeled by using general linear and logistic regressions analyses.
RESULTS: One year after diagnosis, the mean EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health score of the cancer survivors remained low at 53.0 over 100 (SD 21.4). Fifty-four percent of survivors reported at least moderate levels of anxiety, while 27% had at least moderate levels of depression. Late stage at diagnosis was the strongest predictor of low HRQoL. Increasing age, being married, high-income status, hospital type, presence of comorbidities, and chemotherapy administration were also associated with worse HRQoL. The significant predictors of psychological distress were cancer stage and hospital type.
CONCLUSION: Cancer survivors in this middle-income setting have persistently impaired HRQoL and high levels of psychological distress. Development of a holistic cancer survivorship program addressing wider aspects of well-being is urgently needed in our settings.
METHODS: Using Singapore Malaysia Hospital-Based Breast Cancer Registry, clinical information was retrieved from 7064 stage I to III breast cancer patients who were diagnosed between 1990 and 2011 and underwent surgery. Predicted and observed probabilities of positive nodes and survival were compared for each subgroup. Calibration was assessed by plotting observed value against predicted value for each decile of the predicted value. Discrimination was evaluated by area under a receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) with 95 % confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS: The median predicted probability of positive lymph nodes is 40.6 % which was lower than the observed 43.6 % (95 % CI, 42.5 %-44.8 %). The calibration plot showed underestimation for most of the groups. The AUC was 0.71 (95 % CI, 0.70-0.72). Cancermath predicted and observed overall survival probabilities were 87.3 % vs 83.4 % at 5 years after diagnosis and 75.3 % vs 70.4 % at 10 years after diagnosis. The difference was smaller for patients from Singapore, patients diagnosed more recently and patients with favorable tumor characteristics. Calibration plot also illustrated overprediction of survival for patients with poor prognosis. The AUC for 5-year and 10-year overall survival was 0.77 (95 % CI: 0.75-0.79) and 0.74 (95 % CI: 0.71-0.76).
CONCLUSIONS: The discrimination and calibration of CancerMath were modest. The results suggest that clinical application of CancerMath should be limited to patients with better prognostic profile.
Methods: Young women (aged less than 50 years) newly diagnosed with stage I or II (T1-2 N0-1 M0) breast cancer in four hospitals in Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong in 1990-2012 were included. Overall survival (OS) was compared for patients treated by BCS and those who had a mastectomy. Propensity score analysis was used to account for differences in demographic, tumour and treatment characteristics between the groups.
Results: Some 63·5 per cent of 3536 women underwent mastectomy. Over a 15-year period, only a modest increase in rates of BCS was observed. Although BCS was significantly associated with favourable prognostic features, OS was not significantly different for BCS and mastectomy; the 5-year OS rate was 94·9 (95 per cent c.i. 93·5 to 96·3) and 92·9 (91·7 to 94·1) per cent respectively. Inferences remained unchanged following propensity score analysis (hazard ratio for BCS versus mastectomy: 0·81, 95 per cent c.i. 0·64 to 1·03).
Conclusion: The prevalence of young women with breast cancer treated by mastectomy remains high in Asian countries. Patients treated with BCS appear to survive as well as those undergoing mastectomy.
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.