METHODS: Meeting records from September 2013 till June 2021 were reviewed. Detailed minutes were available starting August 2016; case data were analyzed including diagnoses, purpose of presentation and recommendations. A 38-item survey assessing perception of benefits, challenges, and opportunities of the forum was distributed to members of the POEM group and results analyzed.
RESULTS: A total of 140 cases were presented from 14 countries. After August 2016, 67 cases were presented, and those were analyzed regarding reasons for discussion, barriers, and recommendations. Details are presented in this report, and the most common challenges identified were related to histopathologic/molecular diagnosis (24%), imaging interpretation (18%), resource limitations (12%), and surgical difficulties (9%). A survey was distributed to all POEM members in 28 countries, and 76 responded. The main benefit reported was the provision of recommendations regarding treatment and evaluation, while the main challenges reported were time zone difference and workload. Recognized opportunities included conducting regionally relevant research studies based on clinical problems identified during discussions, and setting guidelines for resource-adapted treatment regimens.
CONCLUSIONS: The POEM CDF identified areas for multi-institutional regional studies and led to a twinning project between two centers in the region for improving diagnostic infrastructure. Such forums can identify specific resource limitations in pediatric cancer and direct efforts for targeted capacity building.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online, anonymous, voluntary survey was conducted to assess the level of knowledge and understanding about EAPs among Malaysian oncologists using SurveyMonkey® between April 2020 and June 2020. Oncologists who had enquired about EAP in the past, were invited at random to participate in the survey. Participants who did not provide consent or failed to complete the survey were excluded.
RESULTS: A total of 15 oncologists participated in the survey, from both public (46.6%) and private (46.6%) practices. Most respondents (80%) had filed between 1 to 10 EAP applications in the past 12 months. For 73.3% respondents, resources or training were not provided for EAPs from institutions. Around 53% of the respondents reported that their knowledge of EAPs and application processes including country regulations is 'good'. The majority of respondents (73.3%) reported that the educational modules on an overview of EAPs, country regulations and the EAP application process will be beneficial. Most participants received information about the existing EAPs either by reaching out to a pharmaceutical sponsor or through another health care provider and some received information about the existing EAPs through their institutions or patients/caregivers. Most of the respondents recommended that pharmaceutical companies should have readily available information related to the availability and application of EAPs for all pipeline products on their websites.
DISCUSSION: EAPs are crucial treatment access pathways to provide investigational drugs to patients who have exhausted their treatment options and are not eligible for participation in clinical trials. Malaysian oncologists have a fair understanding about the EAPs and the application processes.
CONCLUSION: Additional training and awareness are needed for Malaysian oncologists to upscale the utilisation of EAPs.
METHODS: The APODDC set up a group of experts in the field of clinical cancer genomics to (i) understand the current NGS landscape for metastatic cancers in the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region; (ii) discuss key challenges in the adoption of NGS testing in clinical practice; and (iii) adapt/modify the European Society for Medical Oncology guidelines for local use. Nine cancer types [breast cancer (BC), gastric cancer (GC), nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC), ovarian cancer (OC), prostate cancer, lung cancer, and colorectal cancer (CRC) as well as cholangiocarcinoma and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)] were identified, and the applicability of NGS was evaluated in daily practice and/or clinical research. Asian ethnicity, accessibility of NGS testing, reimbursement, and socioeconomic and local practice characteristics were taken into consideration.
RESULTS: The APODDC recommends NGS testing in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Routine NGS testing is not recommended in metastatic BC, GC, and NPC as well as cholangiocarcinoma and HCC. The group suggested that patients with epithelial OC may be offered germline and/or somatic genetic testing for BReast CAncer gene 1 (BRCA1), BRCA2, and other OC susceptibility genes. Access to poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors is required for NGS to be of clinical utility in prostate cancer. Allele-specific PCR or a small-panel multiplex-gene NGS was suggested to identify key alterations in CRC.
CONCLUSION: This document offers practical guidance on the clinical utility of NGS in specific cancer indications from an Asian perspective.
METHODS: The collaboration was initiated with the first ASCO Palliative Care e-course, Train the Trainer program, International Development and Education Award-Palliative Care and translation of ASCO Palliative Care Interdisciplinary Curriculum resources.
RESULTS: This collaboration has resulted in the change of practice of palliative care among the oncology team of Sarawak General Hospital.
CONCLUSION: It encourages more timely palliative care referrals to ensure that patients with complex physical, psychosocial, and spiritual needs have the necessary input and support from the palliative care team throughout the course of patients' illnesses.
METHODS: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis based on randomised controlled trials that compared antifungal agents to placebo or other antifungal agents used in patients undergoing cancer treatment. Relative ranking of antifungal agents was evaluated with surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probability score. A total of 20 randomised controlled trials (3,215 participants) comparing 11 interventions were included.
RESULTS: Compared with placebo, clotrimazole was ranked the best agent for preventing the incidence of oral candidiasis (risk ratio (RR), 0.21 [95% CI 0.08 to 0.55]; SUCRA = 0.89). Fluconazole was ranked the safest among other antifungal agents (SUCRA = 0.80), whereas clotrimazole (SUCRA = 0.36) and amphotericin B (SUCRA = 0.18) were ranked low for safety. Amphotericin B was associated with highest risk of adverse events (RR, 3.52 [95% CI 1.27 to 9.75]).
CONCLUSION: Clotrimazole is the most effective in preventing oral candidiasis, whereas fluconazole has the most favourable risk-benefit profile in patients undergoing cancer treatment. However, we are unable to recommend clotrimazole as the best choice to prevent oral candidiasis due to unavailability of studies comparing clotrimazole with other antifungal agents.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of pediatric patients (aged <18 years) with CNS tumors diagnosed and treated in the Pediatric Hematology-Oncology Division at the University Malaya Medical Center from 2008 to 2019. We also conducted a web-based survey of the core members of the multidisciplinary team to evaluate the impact of the MDTMs.
RESULTS: During the pre-MDTM era (2008-2012), 29 CNS tumors were diagnosed and treated, and during the MDTM era (2014-2019), 49 CNS tumors were diagnosed and treated. The interval for histologic diagnosis was significantly shorter during the MDTM era (p=0.04), but the interval from diagnosis to chemotherapy or radiotherapy and the 5-year overall survival of the 78 patients did not improve (62.1% ± 9.0% vs. 68.8% ± 9.1%; p=0.184). However, the 5-year overall survival of patients with medulloblastoma or rare tumors significantly improved in the MDTM era (p=0.01). Key factors that contributed to delayed treatment and poor outcomes were postoperative complications, the facility's lack of infrastructure, poor parental education about early treatment, cultural beliefs in alternative medicine, and infection during chemotherapy. Eighteen clinicians responded to the survey; they felt that the MDTMs were beneficial in decision-making and enhanced the continuity of coordinated care.
CONCLUSION: MDTMs significantly reduced the diagnostic interval and improved the overall outcomes. However, delayed treatment remains a major challenge that requires further attention.