METHODS: Two prospective groups of 423 and 965 newly diagnosed breast cancer patients in University of Malaya Medical Centre, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia diagnosed in two time periods ie. 1993 to 1997 and in 1998 to 2002 were studied. Vital status was obtained from the National Registry of Births and Deaths. The overall survival was calculated from the date of diagnosis to the date of death from any cause. The survival differences between the two groups were analysed using the log-rank or Peto-Wilcoxon method. Survival estimates and independent prognostic factors were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and multivariate analysis using Cox proportional hazard models. P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Analyses were performed using SPlus 2000 Professional Release 2.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Median follow-up for the two groups were 55 months (SD 29.2 months) in the first group and 52 months (SD 24.43) in the second group. There was improvement in 5-year observed survival from 58.4% (CI 0.54-0.63) to 75.7% (CI 0.73-0.79). The improvement in survival was significantly seen in all co-variates (p< 0.05) except for those aged 40 years and below (p= 0.27), tumour size 2 to 5 cm (p=0.11), grade 3 (p=0.32) and patients with Stage IV disease (p= 0.80). Stage of disease, lymph node (LN) involvement, size and grade were identified as independent prognostic factors in cohort one. For the second cohort; stage and LN involvement remained independent factors with the addition of ER status and ethnicity.
CONCLUSIONS: There was improvement in 5-year observed survival. Besides known prognostic factors, Malay ethnicity was an independent prognostic factor.
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: 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.
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: We established PN in a dedicated breast clinic of a Malaysian state-run hospital. We compared diagnostic and treatment timeliness between navigated patients (n = 135) and patients diagnosed in the prior year (n = 148), and described factors associated with timeliness.
RESULTS: Women with PN received timely mammography compared with patients in the prior year (96.4% v 74.4%; P < .001), biopsy (92.5% v 76.1%; P = .003), and communication of news (80.0% v 58.5%; P < .001). PN reduced treatment default rates (4.4% v 11.5%; P = .048). Among navigated patients, late stage at presentation was independently associated with having emotional and language barriers ( P = .01). Finally, the main reason reported for delay, default, or refusal of treatment was the preference for alternative therapy.
CONCLUSION: PN is feasible for addressing barriers to cancer care when integrated with a state-run breast clinic of an LMIC. Its implementation resulted in improved diagnostic timeliness and reduced treatment default. Wider adoption of PN could be a key element of cancer control in LMICs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study examined breast cancer patients between 1st January 1994 and 31st December 2004 in UMMC. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and comparisons between groups using the log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate analysis on prognostic factors were carried out using the Cox's proportionate hazard model for patient demographics, and tumour and treatment factors.
RESULTS: One hundred and thirty six patients were identified, with a median age at diagnosis of 75 years. Most had at least one co-morbidity (61.8%). Only 75.0% had a good performance status (ECOG 0-1). Mean tumour size was 4.4 cm. Primary tumour stages (T stages) 3 and 4 were present in 8.1% and 30.1% of patients respectively, and 30.9% had stage III and 8.8% had stage IV disease based on overall AJCC staging. ER positivity was 58.1%. PR status was positive in 30.1%. Surgery was performed in 69.1% of the patients and mastectomy and axillary clearance were the commonest surgical procedures (50.7%). Some 79.4% of patients received hormonal therapy, 30.1% radiotherapy and only 3.6% chemotherapy. Non-standard treatment was given to 39.0% of patients due to a variety of reasons. The cumulative 5 years overall, relapse free and cause specific survivals were 51.9%, 79.7% and 73.3% respectively. Performance status, T3-4 tumour, presence of metastasis, tumour grade and ER status were independent prognostic factors for overall survival. For cause specific survival they were T4 tumour, presence of metastasis and ER status.
CONCLUSION: The 5 years overall survival rate was 51.9% and 41.8% of deaths were non-breast cancer related deaths. Low survival rate was related to low life expectancy in this population. Locally advanced disease, metastatic disease and high ER negative rates play a major role in the survival of elderly breast cancer patients in Malaysia.
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.