METHODS: NPC patients were recruited in this cross-sectional study, and they were divided into well-nourished and malnourished groups according to the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM). Potential risk factors were initially screened using univariate analysis (p
METHODS: Autologous HSCT patients aged 18 years old and above were recruited from Hospital Ampang, Malaysia, between April 2019 to December 2020. Mucositis assessments were conducted daily, whilst blood and saliva were collected prior to conditioning regimen, on Day 0, Day+7 and 6-month. Baseline and inflammatory predictors in a repeated time measurement of moderate-severe mucositis were assessed by multiple logistic regression and generalized estimating equations, respectively.
RESULTS: Of the 142 patients analyzed, oral mucositis and diarrhea (representing GI mucositis) were reported as 68.3% and 95.8%, respectively. Predictive factors for moderate-severe oral mucositis were BEAM or busulphan-based regimens (odds ratio (OR)=9.2, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.16-72.9, p-value (p) = 0.005) and vomiting (OR=4.6, 95% CI 1.68-12.3, p = 0.004). Predictive factors for moderate-severe GI mucositis were BEAM or busulphan-based regimens (OR=3.9, 95% CI 1.05-14.5, p = 0.023), female sex (OR = 3.3, 95% CI 1.43-7.44, p = 0.004) and body mass index (OR=1.08, 95% CI 1.02-1.15, p = 0.010). Cytokines analyses were performed in 96 patients. Saliva and plasma interleukin-6 (OR=1.003, 95% CI 1.001-1.004, p < 0.001 and OR=1.01, 95% CI 1.001-1.015, p = 0.029), and plasma tumor necrosis factor-alpha (OR=0.91, 95% CI 0.85-0.99, p = 0.019) were predictive of moderate-severe oral mucositis in a time-dependent model.
CONCLUSION: This study provides real-world evidence and insights into patient- and treatment-related factors affecting oral and GI mucositis in HSCT.
METHOD: This systematic review used the preferred reporting items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled and quasi-experimental studies published from the establishment of the database to October 2022. Marital self-disclosure interventions were conducted with both cancer patients and their spouses. Studies published in a language other than English or Chinese, and studies below a quality grade of C were excluded. Data were extracted through a standardized data collection form, and two reviewers independently extracted and evaluated the data. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and a third reviewer adjudicated in case of disagreement. The data were synthesized by vote counting based on direction of effect according to the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) reporting guideline.
RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included in the review. Based on quality evaluation, three studies were categorized as grade A (good), and ten studies were grade B (moderate). Seven studies reported moderate rates of participant refusal and attrition. The structure and topics of marital self-disclosure varied across different studies. The five studies had various prespecified disclosure topics, such as fear of cancer recurrence, benefit finding, and emotional distress. The overall results suggest that marital self-disclosure interventions can improve physical and psychological health, enhance marital relationships, and increase self-disclosure ability.
CONCLUSION: The limited number of studies, small sample sizes, diverse intervention strategies, and methodological heterogeneity weakened the evidence base for the effectiveness of marital self-disclosure interventions. Therefore, further high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are recommended to confirm the effectiveness of such interventions. These studies should also evaluate the interventions' long-term impact, analyze optional topics and methods, identify key features, and explore the development of the best intervention program.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and two Chinese electronic databases were electronically searched to identify eligible studies that reported the correlates of stigma for patients with breast cancer from inception to July 2022. Two researchers independently performed literature screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. R4.1.1 software was used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: Twenty articles including 4161 patients were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Results showed that breast cancer stigma was positively correlated with working status, type of surgery, resignation coping, depression, ambivalence over emotional expression, and delayed help-seeking behavior and negatively correlated with age, education, income, quality of life, social support, confrontation coping, psychological adaptation, self-efficacy, and self-esteem. Descriptive analysis showed that breast cancer stigma was positively correlated with intrusive thoughts, body image, anxiety, and self-perceived burden but negatively correlated with a sense of coherence, personal acceptance of the disease, sleep quality, cancer screening attendance and doctor's empathy.
CONCLUSION: Many demographic, disease-related, and psychosocial variables are related to breast cancer stigma. Our view can serve as a basis for health care professionals to develop health promotion and prevention strategies for patients with breast cancer.
METHODS: Published journals before September 2021, from five databases (PubMed, ScienceDirect, Springer, Cochrane, and CNKI) were retrieved according to the keywords. The keywords used included cancer patients, terminally ill patients, cancer, SPB, self-perceived burden, self-burden, self-perceived, factor, predictor, associated factor, determinants, risk factor, prognostic factor, covariate, independent variable, and variable. The quality of the inclusion and exclusion criteria was independently reviewed by three researchers.
RESULTS: Out of 12,712 articles, there are 22 studies met the eligibility criteria. The prevalence of SPB among cancer patients ranged from 73.2 to 100% in Malaysia, China, and Canada. Most of them had moderate SPB. Out of the reported factors, age, gender, marital status, ethnicity, residence, educational level, occupational status, family income, primary caregiver, payment methods, disease-related factors, psychological factors, and physical factors were mostly reported across the studies.
CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, SPB prevalence is high in cancer patients. Therefore, hospitals, non-governmental organizations, relevant policymakers, and communities can provide special programs for high-risk groups to provide psychological guidance or design corresponding interventions to reduce the SPB level of patients and improve the quality of life.
METHODS: A total of 160 breast cancer survivors from the University of Malaya Medical Centre (UMMC) participated in this cross-sectional study. Their QoL was evaluated with the Malay version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) version 3.0. Cognitive functioning and psychological distress were evaluated using the Malay version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-BM) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), respectively. Data analysis was performed with Pearson's correlation and multiple regression analyses.
RESULTS: At 1- to 3-year post-chemotherapy, the mean EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status of the breast cancer survivors was relatively low (60.5 over 100, SD = 10.88). One-third (31.9%) of them demonstrated cognitive impairment, and another 3.2% showed moderate to severe anxiety levels. The significant predictors for global health status and functioning included age, psychological distresses, cognitive performance, fatigue, appetite loss, insomnia, pain, and constipation.
CONCLUSION: Our breast cancer survivors demonstrated poor global health status. Health care providers and policymakers must strive to provide holistic intervention strategies to improve the multiple dimensions of QoL and the cognitive and psychological functioning of this vulnerable population.
METHODS: This qualitative study was conducted using a face-to-face interview method with HCPs from two tertiary hospitals in North East Malaysia. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and transferred to NVivo ® for data management. The transcriptions were analyzed using thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Three key barriers were identified through the thematic analysis: a scarcity of related knowledge; the influence of socio-cultural ideas about sex; and the specialty-centric nature of the healthcare system. Most HCPs interviewed had a very narrow understanding of sexuality, were unfamiliar with the meaning of FSD, and felt their training on sexual health issues to be very limited. They viewed talking about sex to be embarrassing to both parties that are both to HCPs and patients and was therefore not a priority. They focused more on their specialty hence limited the time to discuss sexual health and FSD with their patients.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, interventions to empower the knowledge, break the socio-cultural barriers, and improve the clinic settings are crucial for HCPs in managing FSD confidently.
METHODS: We systematically searched Medline, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PsycINFO for qualitative research exploring positive changes after cancer published from 1996. From eligible studies, we extracted: terms used for PTG; design, methodological orientation, and techniques, and participant characteristics. Using descriptive mapping, we explored whether study findings fit within Tedeschi and Calhoun's PTG framework, and evidence for unique positive changes post-cancer.
RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies were eligible. Cancer sites included were: breast, 14; mixed, 6; haematological, 4; head and neck cancer, 2; bone, 1, and testis, 1. Multiple studies were conducted in: the USA (12), Australia (3), Iran (2), and the UK (2). Twenty-three studies collected data using individual interviews (21) or focus groups (2). Definitions of PTG varied. Studies largely focused on descriptive accounts of PTG. Findings mapped onto existing PTG dimensions; health behaviour changes were often reported, under 'new possibilities'.
CONCLUSIONS: A range of PTG outcomes can occur after cancer. Positive health behaviour changes warrant further exploration. Future research should include more diverse patient populations, collect longitudinal data, and focus on pathways towards positive changes.
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.
METHODS: An anonymous Internet-based study was conducted between 23 April and 26 June 2020. During the study period, the country underwent phase 3 and phase 4 of the Movement Control Order (MCO), Conditional Movement Control Order (CMCO), and Recovery Movement Control Order (RMCO). Psychological distress was measured using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), which is a 14-item self-assessment scale for measuring distress (total HADS score; HADS-T) with two subscales, namely, anxiety (HADS-A) and depression (HADS-D). Perceived threat of infection was measured based on the health belief model.
RESULTS: From a total of 631 responses received, the proportion of participants with anxiety and depression symptoms (above threshold score of 8 on HADS-A and HADS-D) was 29.0 and 20.9%, respectively. Psychological distress (HADS-T > 16) was reported in 22.3% of the respondents. A total of 16.5% had combined anxiety and depression symptoms. The highest HADS-A (6.10; 95% CI 5.64-6.56), HADS-D (5.61; 95% CI 5.14-6.08), and HADS-T (11.71; 95% CI 10.84-12.58) scores were reported among respondents during phase 4 of the MCO. Partial least square-based structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) revealed that self-perceived health status, perceived susceptibility, and severity of COVID-19 have the greatest effect, leading to higher HADS-A, HADS-D, and HADS-T scores.
CONCLUSION: Heightened psychological distress was evident in cancer survivors particularly during the enforcement of the MCO over COVID-19. Providing support to address cancer survivors' psychological and emotional needs during the COVID-19 pandemic is essential.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed and Scopus electronic databases to identify eligible reports on cognitive changes following PT of PBT according to PRISMA guidelines. Reports were extracted for information on demographics and cognitive outcomes. Then, they were systematically reviewed based on three themes: (1) comparison with photon therapy, (2) comparison with baseline cognitive measures, to population normative mean or radiotherapy-naïve PBT patients and (3) effects of dose distribution to cognition.
RESULTS: Thirteen reports (median size (range): 70 (12-144)) were included. Four reports compared the cognitive outcome between PBT patients treated with proton to photon therapy and nine compared with baseline/normative mean/radiotherapy naïve from which two reported the effects of dose distribution. Reports found significantly poorer cognitive outcome among patients treated with photon therapy compared with proton therapy especially in general cognition and working memory. Craniospinal irradiation (CSI) was consistently associated with poorer cognitive outcome while focal therapy was associated with minor cognitive change/difference. In limited reports available, higher doses to the hippocampus and temporal lobes were implicated to larger cognitive change.
CONCLUSION: Available evidence suggests that PT causes less cognitive deficits compared with photon therapy. Children who underwent focal therapy with proton were consistently shown to have low risk of cognitive deficit suggesting the need for future studies to separate them from CSI. Evidence on the effect of dose distribution to cognition in PT is yet to mature.
METHODS: The video was developed using the BC delay explanatory model. A self-administered pre- and post-survey on 241 newly diagnosed BC patients in University Malaya Medical Center was performed. The Wilcoxon matched paired signed rank test was used to evaluate patients' pre and post perceived knowledge using a Likert scale 0 to 4 (0 = "no knowledge," 4 = "a great degree of knowledge"). Treatment adherence among participants were measured after 1-year follow-up.
RESULTS: Eighty percent of the patients reported that the video met or exceeded their expectations. In total 80.5% reported that the video was very effective and effective in improving their perspective on BC treatments. There was improvement in perceived knowledge for treatment options (mean scores; M = 0.93 versus M = 2.97) (p < 0.001) and also for perceived knowledge on types of operation, information on chemotherapy, radiotherapy, hormone therapy, healthy diet, physical activity after treatments, and care of the arm after operation(p < 0.001). In total 89.4%, 79.3%, and 85.9% adhered to surgical, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy recommended treatment, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The video improved patients' perceived knowledge and satisfaction. The program improved access not only to new BC patients but also the public and found sustainable using the YouTube platform.
METHODS: We identified articles published Jan 1, 2005, to March 7, 2019, describing financial burden/toxicity experienced by cancer patients and/or informal caregivers using OVID Medline Embase and PsychInfo, CINAHL, Business Source Complete, and EconLit databases. Only English language peer-reviewed full papers describing studies conducted in very high development index countries with predominantly publicly funded healthcare were eligible (excluded the USA). All stages of the review were evaluated in teams of two researchers excepting the final data extraction (CJL only).
RESULTS: The searches identified 7117 unique articles, 32 of which were eligible. Studies were undertaken in Canada, Australia, Ireland, UK, Germany, Denmark, Malaysia, Finland, France, South Korea, and the Netherlands. Eighteen studies reported patient/caregiver out-of-pocket costs (range US$17-US$506/month), 18 studies reported patient/caregiver lost income (range 17.6-67.3%), 14 studies reported patient/caregiver travel and accommodation costs (range US$8-US$393/month), and 6 studies reported financial stress (range 41-48%), strain (range 7-39%), or financial burden/distress/toxicity among patients/caregivers (range 22-27%). The majority of studies focused on patients, with some including caregivers. Financial toxicity was greater in those with early disease and/or more severe cancers.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite government-funded universal public healthcare, financial toxicity is an issue for cancer patients and their families. Although levels of toxicity vary between countries, the findings suggest financial protection appears to be inadequate in many countries.
METHODS: A parallel RCT was conducted in two hospitals in Malaysia, where 129 CML patients were randomised to MMS or control (usual care) groups using a stratified 1:1 block randomisation method. The 6-month MMS included three face-to-face medication use reviews, CML and TKI-related education, two follow-up telephone conversations, a printed information booklet and two adherence aids. Medication adherence (primary outcome), molecular responses and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scores were assessed at baseline, 6th and 12th month. Medication adherence and HRQoL were assessed using medication possession ratio and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment in Cancer questionnaire (EORTC_QLQ30_CML24) respectively.
RESULTS: The MMS group (n = 65) showed significantly higher adherence to TKIs than the control group (n = 64) at 6th month (81.5% vs 56.3%; p = 0.002), but not at 12th month (72.6% vs 60.3%; p = 0.147). In addition, a significantly higher proportion of participants in the MMS group achieved major molecular response at 6th month (58.5% vs 35.9%; p = 0.010), but not at 12th month (66.2% vs 51.6%; p = 0.092). Significant deep molecular response was also obtained at 12th month (24.6% vs 10.9%; p = 0.042). Six out of 20 subscales of EORTC-QLQ30-CML24 were significantly better in the MMS group.
CONCLUSIONS: The MMS improved CML patients' adherence to TKI as well as achieved better clinical outcomes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrial.gov (ID: NCT03090477).
METHODS: A total of 323 dyads of GI cancer patients and their caregivers completed the Medical Outcomes Study 12-item Short Form (MOS SF-12) questionnaire to measure their HRQOL during face-to-face interviews. The analyses were performed using SF-12 scoring software to compute PCS and MCS scores (HRQOL parameters). The independent t test, one-way ANOVA, and the Pearson correlation test were conducted to determine the demographic factors related to the HRQOL of the dyads.
RESULTS: The caregivers had higher scores in all domains for the SF-12 than the patients. There were significant differences found in the MCS scores of the patients according to ethnicity, origin of cancer, duration of cancer, and surgery. None of these factors had a significant relationship with the caregivers' HRQOL.
CONCLUSION: Caregivers had better HRQOL than cancer patients. Early intervention for cancer patients in the form of counselling and personalised pain management may enhance the HRQOL of patients.
METHODS: A total of 429 respondents diagnosed with urologic cancers (prostate cancer, bladder and renal cancer) from Sarawak General Hospital and Subang Jaya Medical Centre in Malaysia were interviewed using a structured questionnaire. Objective and subjective FT were measured by catastrophic health expenditure (healthcare-cost-to-income ratio greater than 40%) and the Personal Financial Well-being Scale, respectively. HRQoL was measured with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General 7 Items scale.
RESULTS: Objective and subjective FT were experienced by 16.1 and 47.3% of the respondents, respectively. Respondents who sought treatment at a private hospital and had out-of-pocket health expenditures were more likely to experience objective FT, after adjustment for covariates. Respondents who were female and had a monthly household income less than MYR 5000 were more likely to experience average to high subjective FT. Greater objective FT (OR = 2.75, 95% CI 1.09-6.95) and subjective FT (OR = 4.68, 95% CI 2.63-8.30) were associated with poor HRQoL.
CONCLUSIONS: The significant association between both objective and subjective FT and HRQoL highlights the importance of reducing FT among urologic cancer patients. Subjective FT was found to have a greater negative impact on HRQoL.
METHODS: A prospective, non-randomised longitudinal study was conducted in two government integrated hospitals over an 8-month period. Early-stage breast cancer patients who were (1) either already using complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) or not and (2) who were on a regime of 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide were included in the study. Patients who agreed to receive CHM were assigned to receive individualised CHM prescriptions deemed suitable for the individual at a particular time. Those who were not willing to take Chinese herbal medicines (CHM) were assigned to the non-CHM control group. Blood profile and chemotherapy-induced AE were recorded whilst HRQOL assessment was done using the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire on first, third, and sixth cycles.
RESULTS: Forty-seven patients [32 female vs. 1 male, p = 0.31; mean year of age: 52.2(SD = 7.6), p = 0.28)}] were recruited during the study period. Demographics of both groups were comparable. Fifty percent of respondents reported using some kind of CAM before chemotherapy. Diet supplements (40.6%) were the most common CAM used by the respondents. The study showed that patients using CHM had significantly less fatigue (p = 0.012), nausea (p = 0.04), and anorexia (p = 0.005) during chemotherapy. There were no significant differences in patients' HRQOL (p = 0.79). There were no AEs reported during the study.
CONCLUSION: The use of CHM as an adjunct treatment with conventional chemotherapy have been shown to reduce fatigue, nausea, and anorexia in breast cancer patients but did not reduce chemotherapy-associated hematologic toxicity. The sample size of this study was not powered to assess the significance of HRQOL between two groups of patients.