Materials and methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on 520 women from three different government health clinics in Kuantan and IIUM Family Health Clinic from February to April 2018. Data were collected using a self-administered questionnaire on socio-demographic factors and knowledge of breast cancer and its effect on the behavioral adoption of BSE.
Results: Significant difference was found between socio-demographic characteristics and behavioral adoption of BSE. However, only breast screening and the best time for screening were found to be significant with the behavioral adoption of BSE and knowledge of breast cancer.
Conclusion: It is found that most women in Kuantan, Pahang perform BSE but were still unaware of the importance of performing BSE for early breast cancer detection. This study was expected to enhance women's awareness of the benefits of performing BSE.
METHODS: Stool samples were collected prospectively from symptomatic adults who had elective colonoscopy from September 2014 to January 2016 and were analyzed with the ScheBo M2-PK Quick test and laboratory detection of fecal hemoglobin.
RESULTS: The results were correlated to the colonoscopy findings and/or histopathology report. Eighty-five subjects (age of 56.8 ± 15.3 years [mean ± standard deviation]) were recruited with a total of 17 colorectal cancer (20.0%) and 10 colorectal adenoma patients (11.8%). The sensitivity of M2-PK test in colorectal cancer detection was higher than gFOBT (100% vs. 64.7%). M2-PK test had a lower specificity when compared to gFOBT (72.5% vs. 88.2%) in colorectal cancer detection. The positive and negative predictive values were 47.2% and 100% for M2-PK test and 57.9% and 90.9% for gFOBT.
CONCLUSION: Fecal M2-PK Quick test has a high sensitivity for detection of colorectal cancer when compared to gFOBT, making it the potential choice for colorectal tumor screening biomarker in the future.
METHODS: A 3-phase approach was undertaken: Phase 1: development of the weighted scoring system; Phase 2: estimating positive predicting value of MARK's Quadrant; and Phase 3: a) testing the validity of MARK's Quadrant in an open-access endoscope system; and b) comparing its usefulness compared to conventional referral system.
RESULTS: In phases 1 and 2, MARK's Quadrant with weighted symptoms was developed. The sensitivity of MARK's Quadrant is 88% and the specificity is 45.5% to detect cancerous and precancerous lesions of gastric. This was confirmed by the prospective data from phase 3 of this study where the diagnostic yield of MARK's Quadrant to detect any pathological lesion was 95.2%. This score has a high accuracy efficiency of 75%, hence comparing to routine referral system it has an odds ratio (95%CI) of 10.98 (4.63-26.00), 6.71 (4.46-10.09) and 0.95 (0.06-0.15) (P<0.001 respectively) for cancer, precancerous lesion and benign lesion diagnosis respectively.
CONCLUSION: MARK's Quadrant is a useful tool to detect early gastric cancer among symptomatic patients in a low incidence region.
METHODS: A literature search of PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Scopus was carried out. The search strategy was restricted to human subjects and studies are published in English. Data on sensitivity and specificity were extracted and pooled. Heterogeneity was assumed at significance level of p < 0.10 and was tested by chi squared. Degree of heterogeneity was quantified using the I2 statistic, and values of less than 25% is considered as homogenous. All analyses were performed using the software Meta-Disc.
RESULTS: A total of eleven studies were suitable for data synthesis and analysis. Five studies were analyzed for the accuracy of genetic testing, the pooled estimate for sensitivity and specificity were 71% (95% CI: 66, 75%) and 95% (95% CI: 93, 97%) respectively. Another group of studies which had been evaluated for the accuracy of FOBT, the pooled sensitivity was 31% (95% CI: 25, 38%) while the pooled specificity was 87% (95% CI: 86, 89%).
CONCLUSIONS: FOBTs is recommended to use as population-based screening tools for colorectal cancer while genetic testing should be focusing on patients with moderate and high risk individuals.
Case presentation: We present a case of 15-year-old boy from rural area, presented with chronic diarrhea and per rectal bleeding for 3 months. The diagnosis was determined by colonoscope which revealed a fungating mass identified at 10cm from anal verge. Histological examination confirmed diagnosis of signet ring cell adenocarcinoma. CT scan of the abdomen showed thickening involving the recto-sigmoid colon and rectal mass, without evidence of distant metastatic disease. The patient's carcinoembryonic antigen level was within the normal range. He underwent a colostomy and was subjected to neoadjuvant CCRT and surgery.
Discussion: This CASE highlights the importance and challenges in achieving early diagnosis and surgical intervention of signet-ring cell carcinoma in adolescents, as most cases are detected at an advanced stage coupled with the scarcity of information on these rarer subtypes which leads to a poor prognosis.
Conclusion: In managing Signet cell carcinoma of the colorectal, physician have to know that it has a poor prognosis in patients of any age. However, in young teenagers delayed diagnosis and treatment option are narrowed to palliative management. Genetic profiling of family members and similar environment population may be a key to early detection.
METHODS: We developed a decision analytic model to estimate the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) accrued through BRCA mutation testing or routine clinical surveillance (RCS) for a hypothetical cohort of 1000 early-stage breast cancer patients aged 40 years. In the model, patients would decide whether to accept testing and to undertake risk-reducing mastectomy, oophorectomy, tamoxifen, combinations or neither. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) from the health system perspective. A series of sensitivity analyses were performed.
RESULTS: In the base case, testing generated 11.2 QALYs over the lifetime and cost US$4815 per patient whereas RCS generated 11.1 QALYs and cost US$4574 per patient. The ICER of US$2725/QALY was below the cost-effective thresholds. The ICER was sensitive to the discounting of cost, cost of BRCA mutation testing and utility of being risk-free, but the ICERs remained below the thresholds. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at a threshold of US$9500/QALY, 99.9% of simulations favoured BRCA mutation testing over RCS.
CONCLUSIONS: Offering BRCA mutation testing to early-stage breast cancer patients identified using a locally-validated risk-assessment tool may be cost effective compared to RCS in Malaysia.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Management and Science University conducted a cross-sectional study analyzing responses through cross-tabulation with the socio-demographic data collected.
RESULTS: The findings of our quantitative analysis suggest that Malaysian youth generally possess a moderate knowledge about cancer. Quantitative analyses found that socioeconomic inequalities and bias in education present as important factors contributing to cancer awareness, prevention, and treatment among Malaysian adolescents.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that Malaysian youth generally possess a moderate knowledge about cancer but the current deficiencies in initiatives directed to cancer awareness continue to hinder the improvement in prevention of cancer among Malaysian adolescents.