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.
METHODS: This historical cohort study included women who underwent mastectomy after diagnosis with stage 0 to stage IIIa breast cancer from 2011 to 2015 in a tertiary hospital. Multivariable regression analyses were used to assess factors associated with immediate breast reconstruction and to measure clinical outcomes.
RESULT: Out of 790 patients with early breast cancer who had undergone mastectomy, only 68 (8.6%) received immediate breast reconstruction. Immediate breast reconstruction was independently associated with younger age at diagnosis, recent calendar years, Chinese ethnicity, higher education level, and invasive ductal carcinomas. Although immediate breast reconstruction was associated with a higher risk of short-term local surgical complications (adjusted odds ratio: 3.58 [95% confidence interval 1.75-7.30]), there were no significant differences in terms of delay in initiation of chemotherapy, 5-year disease-free survival, and 5-year overall survival between both groups in the multivariable analyses.
CONCLUSION: Although associated with short-term surgical complications, immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy does not appear to be associated with delays in initiation of chemotherapy, recurrence, or mortality after breast cancer. These findings are valuable in facilitating shared surgical decision-making, improving access to immediate breast reconstruction, and setting priorities for surgical trainings in middle-income settings.
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey study. Oncology practitioners were recruited from a major cancer center in Singapore and through two regional cancer meetings that took place in Singapore and Malaysia in 2013.
RESULTS: A total of 126 oncology practitioners from various Southeast Asian countries, mostly nurses (58.7 %) and physicians (37.3 %), were recruited. The majority of the respondents agreed that fatigue (78.4 %) and anxiety (69.1 %) were the most common physical and psychosocial problems experienced by BCS. Monitoring for physical and treatment-related adverse effects (80.7 %) and reviewing patients' noncancer medical history (65.3 %) were the most practiced aspects of follow-up care. Compared with the other practitioners, the physicians were more likely to communicate with other healthcare professionals (adjusted OR = 4.24, 95 % CI 1.54 to 11.72; p = 0.005). Most of the respondents also agreed that patient-specific barriers were the main impediments to follow-up care.
CONCLUSION: This study provides insights into the various aspects of breast cancer survivorship care from the perspectives of oncology practitioners and shows that survivorship care is relatively inadequate in Asia. There is a need for new survivorship care models to meet the needs of Asian BCS and to complement the unique healthcare systems of Asia.
MATERIAL AND METHOD: The functional assessment of chronic illness therapy (FACIT) system is a collection of QOL questionnaires targeted to measure QOL in chronic illness. The functional assessment of cancer therapy for breast cancer (FACT-B) was translated into the local language (Malayalam) and tested for validity and reliability.
RESULTS: The tool thus developed showed substantial sensitivity, as does the source tool. The Cronbach's alpha for the total FACT-B was 0.87, which is similar to the alpha of 0.9 observed in the FACT-B English version. The mean FACT-B score was 94.3 compared to 112.8 for the source tool.
CONCLUSION: The Malayalam translation of the FACT-B questionnaire was developed, tested and validated, and was found satisfactory in comparison to the source tool.
METHODS: Breast cancer patients were recruited from three Malaysian hospitals between June and November 2017. We compared the proportion of patients who rated PROs as very important (scored 7-9 on a 9-point Likert scale) between Malaysian patients and data collected from patients in HICs via the ICHOM questionnaire development process, using logistic regression. A two-step cluster analysis explored differences in PROs among Malaysian patients.
RESULTS: The most important PROs for both cohorts were survival, overall well-being, and physical functioning. Compared with HIC patients (n = 1177), Malaysian patients (n = 969) were less likely to rate emotional (78% vs 90%), cognitive (76% vs 84%), social (72% vs 81%), and sexual (30% vs 56%) functioning as very important outcomes (P breast reconstructive surgery, were more likely to rate body image and satisfaction with the breast as very important outcomes.
CONCLUSION: Taking into account the differences in PROs by cultural and socioeconomic settings could improve patient expectation of services and refine the assessment of cancer care outcomes.
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.