MATERIALS AND METHODS: All women with breast cancer treated at SJMC between 2008 and 2012 were enrolled for this observational cohort study. Mortality outcome was ascertained through record linkage with national death register, linkage with hospital registration system and finally through direct contact by phone or home visits.
RESULTS: A total of 675 patients treated between 2008 and 2012 were included in the present survival analysis, 65% with early breast cancer, 20% with locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) and 4% with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The overall relative survival (RS) at 5 years was 88%. RS for stage I was 100% and for stage II, III and IV disease was 95%, 69% and 36% respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: SJMC is among the first hospitals in Malaysia to embark on routine measurement of the performance of its cancer care services and its results are comparable to any leading centers in developed countries.
METHODS: Patients diagnosed with invasive breast cancer (BC) from 2005 to 2013 at our tertiary institution were included and divided according to race and subtypes. Demographic and clinical information of non-metastatic TNBC patients were analyzed. Log-rank test, univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to find associated risk factors related with overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS).
RESULTS: Among 1227 BC patients, 129 (10.5%) had TNBC. TNBC patients had the worst OS (P: 0.0005) and DFS (P: 0.0016) among the subtypes. However, variations in race did not have any difference in OS or DFS among TNBC patients. Axillary lymph node involvement, invasive lobular histology, larger tumor size, and the presence of lymphovascular invasion (LVI) were factors associated with both poor DFS and OS among TNBC patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Racial variation did not have any impact on the prognosis of the TNBC.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients with primary breast cancer and core biopsy proven metastatic ALNs, that had an excellent nodal radiological response following NACT, treated at our centre between January 2016 and December 2018. The initial cohort of patients (Group 1) underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), with a minimum of three nodes were sampled. The subsequent cohort (Group 2) had a marker clip inserted in the metastatic ALN prior to NACT. This cohort underwent wire guided excision of the clipped node in addition to SLNB, with a minimum of three nodes sampled.
RESULTS: A total of 47 patients were identified. Group 1 comprised 22 patients with a sentinel lymph node (SLN) identification rate (IR) of 95%. 25 patients (Group 2) underwent wire guided clip location and the SLN IR was 100% with a 92% clipped node IR. Evidence of pathological complete response (pCR) in the clipped node was associated with pCR in other nodes.
CONCLUSION: Targeted axillary dissection is a feasible technique following excellent response to NACT in selected patients with limited volume ALN metastasis, at diagnosis. The identification of the positive ALN during surgery is vital and the IR can be improved by clipping the node prior to NACT and wire guided localisation at the time of surgery.
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.
METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional survey was conducted at two outpatient chemotherapy centers. A total of 546 patients completed the questionnaires on CAM use. QOL was evaluated based on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) core quality of life (QLQ-C30) and breast cancer-specific quality of life (QLQ-BR23) questionnaires.
RESULTS: A total of 70.7% of patients were identified as CAM users. There was no significant difference in global health status scores and in all five subscales of the QLQ C30 functional scales between CAM users and non-CAM users. On the QLQ-C30 symptom scales, CAM users (44.96±3.89) had significantly (p = 0.01) higher mean scores for financial difficulties than non-CAM users (36.29±4.81). On the QLQ-BR23 functional scales, CAM users reported significantly higher mean scores for sexual enjoyment (6.01±12.84 vs. 4.64±12.76, p = 0.04) than non-CAM users. On the QLQ-BR23 symptom scales, CAM users reported higher systemic therapy side effects (41.34±2.01 vs. 37.22±2.48, p = 0.04) and breast symptoms (15.76±2.13 vs. 11.08±2.62, p = 0.02) than non-CAM users. Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that the use of CAM modality was not significantly associated with higher global health status scores (p = 0.71).
CONCLUSION: While the findings indicated that there was no significant difference between users and non-users of CAM in terms of QOL, CAM may be used by health professionals as a surrogate to monitor patients with higher systemic therapy side effects and breast symptoms. Furthermore, given that CAM users reported higher financial burdens (which may have contributed to increased distress), patients should be encouraged to discuss the potential benefits and/or disadvantages of using CAM with their healthcare providers.
OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to assess CAM use and examine the symptom burden of CAM and non-CAM users among patients with breast cancer who are undergoing chemotherapy.
METHODS: A CAM use questionnaire and the Side-Effect Burden Scale were administered to 546 patients. Complementary and alternative medicine use was categorized as mind-body practices (MBPs), natural products (NPs), or traditional medicine (TM).
RESULTS: We identified 386 CAM users (70.7%) in this study. The CAM users reported a higher marginal mean total symptom burden score (40.39 ± 2.6) than non-CAM users (36.93 ± 3.21), although this difference was not statistically significant (P = .09). Triple-modality (MBP-NP-TM) CAM users had a significantly higher marginal mean total symptom burden score (47.44 ± 4.12) than single-modality (MBP) users (34.09 ± 4.43). The risk of having a high total symptom burden score was 12.9-fold higher among the MBP-NP-TM users than among the MBP users.
CONCLUSIONS: Complementary and alternative medicine use is common among Malaysian patients who are undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer. However, CAM and non-CAM users reported similar symptom burdens, although single-modality use of MBP is likely associated with a lower symptom burden.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Nurses should keep abreast of current developments and trends in CAM use. Understanding CAM use and the related symptom burden will allow nurses to initiate open discussion and guide their patients in seeking additional information or referrals for a particular therapy.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed at two chemotherapy providers. Patients were questioned about use of three categories of CAM, mind-body practices (MBPs), natural products (NPs) and traditional medicine (TM). PFH was also examined separately from CAM to better characterise the patterns of CAM and PFH used during chemotherapy.
RESULTS: A total of 546 eligible patients participated in the study; 70.7% (n = 386) reported using some form of CAM, and 29.3% (n = 160) were non-CAM users. When PFH was excluded as a CAM, fewer patients reported the use of CAM (66.1%; n = 361). The total number of patients who used MBPs decreased from 342 to 183. The most common CAM use category was NPs (82.8%), followed by MBPs (50.7%), and TM (35.7%). CAM users were more likely to have a tertiary education (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.15-3.89 vs. primary/lower), have household incomes > RM 3,000 (≈944 USD) per month (OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.40-3.84 vs. ≤RM 3,000 (≈944 USD)), and have advanced cancer (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.18-2.59 vs. early stage cancer), compared with non-CAM users. The CAM users were less likely to have their chemotherapy on schedule (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10-0.58 vs. chemotherapy postponed) than non-CAM users. Most MBPs were perceived to be more helpful by their users, compared with the users of NPs and TM.
CONCLUSION: CAM use was prevalent among breast cancer patients. Excluding PFH from the definition of CAM reduced the prevalence of overall CAM use. Overall, CAM use was associated with higher education levels and household incomes, advanced cancer and lower chemotherapy schedule compliance. Many patients perceived MBP to be beneficial for improving overall well-being during chemotherapy. These findings, while preliminary, clearly indicate the differences in CAM use when PFH is included in, and excluded from, the definition of CAM.
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.