METHODS: A cross-sectional study of patients with cancer was conducted in Hospital Kuala Lumpur between September and October 2020. Self-reported data from the patients were collected using face-to-face interviews. Detailed information about cancer-related OOP expenses including direct medical, direct non-medical, and productivity loss in addition to financial coping strategies were collected. Costs data were estimated and reported as average annual total costs per patient.
RESULTS: The mean total cost of cancer was estimated at MYR 7955.39 (US$ 1893.46) per patient per year. The direct non-medical cost was the largest contributor to the annual cost, accounting for 46.1% of the total cost. This was followed by indirect costs and direct medical costs at 36.0% and 17.9% of the total annual costs, respectively. Supplemental food and transportation costs were the major contributors to the total non-medical costs. The most frequently used financial coping strategies were savings and financial support received from relatives and friends.
CONCLUSION: This study showed that estimation of the total cost of cancer from the patient's perspective is feasible. Considering the significant impact of direct non-medical and indirect costs on the total costs, it is vital to conduct further exploration of its cost drivers and variations using a larger sample size.
METHODS: Following the PRISMA guidelines, literature searches were conducted systematically through various databases including PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Oxford Academic Journals. Article identification, screening steps and eligibility measures were meticulously performed throughout the review.
RESULTS: A total of 22 papers were appraised and included in this review. Five main themes were generated which were socio-ethical misconceptions, cultural and religious beliefs, cultural and religious barriers, stigmatization and fear of breast cancer impact. Eight sub-themes and 14 sub sub-themes were further elicited from the main themes.
CONCLUSION: Muslim women have socio-ethical, cultural and religious misconceptions on what constitutes health and practices as well as on the nature and etiology of BC. Cultural barriers and religious values of Muslim women were indicated to influence their health behaviors such as upholding their modesty when choosing health interventions. BC stigma and fear were also found to be key sources of psychological distress that discouraged Muslim women from undergoing BC screening. The study suggests the implementation of holistic effort in educating Muslim women to increase BC screening rate.
METHODS: Clinico-epidemiological data of patients who underwent PCN and/or RUS in two institutions for calculi-related ureteric obstruction were retrospectively collected from January 2014 to December 2020.
RESULTS: 537 patients (244 patients in PCN group, 293 patients in RUS group) from both institutions were eligible for analysis based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patients with PCN were generally older, had poorer Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status, and larger obstructive ureteral calculi compared to patients with RUS. Patients with PCN had longer durations of fever, the persistence of elevated total white cell and creatinine, and longer hospitalization stays compared with patients who had undergone RUS. RUS up-front has more unsuccessful interventions compared with PCN. There were no significant differences in the change in SOFA score postintervention between the two interventions. In multivariate analysis, the higher temperature just prior to the intervention (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 2.039, p = 0.003) and Cardiovascular SOFA score of 1 (adjusted OR:4.037, p = 0.012) were significant independent prognostic factors for the development of septic shock postdecompression of ureteral obstruction.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study reveals that both interventions have similar overall risk of urosepsis, septic shock and mortality rate. Despite a marginally higher risk of failure, RUS should be considered in patients with lower procedural risk. Patients going for PCN should be counseled for a longer stay. Post-HDU/-ICU monitoring, inotrope support postdecompression should be considered for patients with elevated temperature within 1 h preintervention and cardiovascular SOFA score of 1.
METHODS: All organ-confined prostate cancer patients treated with SBRT from 2010 to 2018, at Beacon Hospital, Malaysia were included in this study. Patient demographics, dosimetric parameters, and disease information were retrospectively collected. The primary endpoint was biochemical recurrence-free survival assessed using the Phoenix definition (Nadir + 2 ng/mL). Toxicity outcomes were scored using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group scale.
RESULTS: Fourty-nine patients who met the inclusion criteria (5 low-, 13 intermediate- and 31 high-risk according to the D'amico Risk Classification) received SBRT. The most common dose regime was 34-35Gy in 5 fractions (n=18). Other dose regimes were 24Gy in 3 fractions and 25-33Gy in 5 fractions. Median follow-up was 45.4 months. The median pre-treatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was 11.22 ng/mL, which decreased to a median PSA of 0.1 ng/mL by 2 years post-treatment. Out of the 49 cases, only 1 case of biochemical recurrence occurred, yielding a 3- and 5-year overall survival of 100%, and a 3- and 5- year biochemical recurrence-free rate of 100% and 95.2%. Acute grade III urinary toxicities occurred in 1 (2%); whereas acute grade I urinary and rectal toxicities were seen in 22 (44.9%) and 7 (14.3%) patients respectively. Grade I and grade III late rectal toxicities occurred in 3 and 1 patients respectively, while 3 and 1 patient reported late grade I and III urethral stricture respectively.
CONCLUSION: SBRT for clinically-localized and locally advanced prostate cancer provided promising outcomes with low toxicity and good biochemical control.
METHODS: HELIOS-A was a phase 3, global, open-label study comparing the efficacy and safety of vutrisiran with an external placebo group (APOLLO study). Patients were randomized 3:1 to subcutaneous vutrisiran 25 mg every 3 months (Q3M) or intravenous patisiran 0.3 mg/kg every 3 weeks (Q3W) for 18 months.
RESULTS: HELIOS-A enrolled 164 patients (vutrisiran, n = 122; patisiran reference group, n = 42); external placebo, n = 77. Vutrisiran met the primary endpoint of change from baseline in modified Neuropathy Impairment Score +7 (mNIS+7) at 9 months (p = 3.54 × 10-12), and all secondary efficacy endpoints; significant improvements versus external placebo were observed in Norfolk Quality of Life-Diabetic Neuropathy, 10-meter walk test (both at 9 and 18 months), mNIS+7, modified body-mass index, and Rasch-built Overall Disability Scale (all at 18 months). TTR reduction with vutrisiran Q3M was non-inferior to within-study patisiran Q3W. Most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity, and consistent with ATTRv amyloidosis natural history. There were no drug-related discontinuations or deaths.
CONCLUSIONS: Vutrisiran significantly improved multiple disease-relevant outcomes for ATTRv amyloidosis versus external placebo, with an acceptable safety profile.
CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT03759379.