METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with T3-4, N2 M0 breast cancer diagnosed between January 2005 and December 2008 and who received at least one cycle of neoadjuvant chemotherapy were eligible for this study. Thirty-four patients were identified from the Chemotherapy Daycare Records and their medical records were reviewed retrospectively. The neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimen administered was at the discretion of the treating oncologist. Breast tumour size and nodal status was assessed at diagnosis, at each cycle and before surgery.
RESULTS: All 34 patients had invasive ductal cancer. The median age was 52 years (range 27-69). 65% had T4 disease and 76% were clinically lymph node positive at diagnosis. The median size of the breast tumour at presentation was 80 mm (range 42-200 mm). Estrogen and progesterone receptor positivity was seen in less than 40% and HER2 positivity, by immunohistochemistry, in 27%. The majority (85%) of patients had anthracycline based chemotherapy, without taxanes. The overall response rate (clinical CR+PR) was 67.6% and pathological complete responses were apparent in two (5.9%). 17.6% of patients defaulted part of their planned treatment. Recurrent disease was seen in 44.1% and the median time to relapse was 11.3 months. The three year disease free and overall survival rates were 52.5% and 58% respectively.
CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer in a Malaysian setting confers response and pCR rates comparable to published clinical trials. Patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy are at risk of defaulting part of their treatment and therefore their concerns need to be identified proactively and addressed in order to improve outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study examined NPC patients between 1st January 2001 and 31st December 2005 in Penang General Hospital. Survival analyses were performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and comparisons between groups were made using the log-rank test. Important prognostic factors including patient demographics, tumour and treatment factors were analysed using the Cox proportional hazard model.
RESULTS: A total of 285 patients were identified with a median age of 51 years, 72.6% being males. The majority were Chinese (66%) followed by Malays (31.9%). Primary tumour stages (T stages) 3 and 4 were present in 18.6% and 34% of patients respectively, and nodal disease was present in 80.4%. On overall AJCC staging, 29.1% had stage III and 50.2% had stage IV disease. Some 39.6% of patients had WHO type 3 histology and 7.4% had WHO type 1-2 histology with the remainder having NPC with no subtype reported. Concurrent chemo-irradiation was the commonest treatment received by patients (51.9%) followed by radiotherapy alone (41.8%). The 5 year overall survival and cause specific survival were 33.3% and 42.7% respectively. Age group, T stage, N stage and WHO histological subtype were independent prognostic factors for overall survival on multivariate analysis. For cause specific survival they were T stage and N stage.
CONCLUSION: The 5 years overall survival rate was 33.3%. This low figure is primarily due to late presentation. Efforts to detect NPC at earlier stages in Malaysia are urgently needed. These should include public education to increase awareness of the prevalence of this highly treatable disease.
METHODS: This retrospective study of Stage III breast cancer patients was conducted over a 5 year period from 1998 to 2002. The survival data were obtained from the National Registry of Births and Deaths with the end-point of the study in April 2006. The Kaplan Meier method was applied for survival analysis. Cox regression analysis by stepwise selection was performed to identify important prognostic factors.
RESULTS: Out of a 155 evaluable patients, 74 (47.7%) had primary surgery, 62 (40%) had neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 10 patients (6.5%) were given Tamoxifen as the primary treatment, while 9 patients (5.8%) defaulted any form of treatment. After neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 9 patients defaulted further treatment, leaving 53 evaluable patients. Out of these 53 evaluable patients, 5 patients (9.4%) had complete pathological response, 5 (9.4%) a complete clinical response, and 26 (49.1%) had partial response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The 5-year survival in the primary surgery group was 56.7 % compared to 44.7% in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group (p<0.01). The important prognostic factors were race, size of tumour, nodal status, estrogen receptor status and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
CONCLUSION: Patients who had primary surgery had better survival than those who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy, which may be due to bias in the selection of patients for neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Out of a total of 155 patients, 25.1% defaulted part of the treatment, or did not receive optimal treatment, emphasizing the importance of psychosocial support and counselling for this group of patients.
METHODS: This retrospective observational study, conducted in a government hospital on Penang island included 341 cancer patients with thrombocytopenia who were admitted in the period between 2003 to 2009. The main statistical tests used were Chi-square test and Logistic regression test. The level of significance was set at P < 0.05.
RESULTS: Of the total of 341, 21 (6.2%) showed thrombocytopenia before receiving chemotherapy and the remaining 320 (93.8%) after chemotherapy. The majority suffered from moderate thrombocytopenia (n=172; 53.8%), followed by mild a (n=97; 30.3%) and finally severe (n=51; 15.9%). For treatment, chemotherapy was delayed/ reduced (n=223; 65.4%) or platelets were transfused (n=51; 34.6%). However, thrombocytopenia problems were only temporarily solved.
CONCLUSION: Effectiveness of thrombocytopenia treatment guidelines was found to be insufficient. It is advisable that thrombopoietin be used as a cornerstone even for patients who suffer from moderate thrombocytopenia and platelets transfusion should be used just for emergency cases when thrombocytopenia leads to a critical situation.
METHODS: We carried a review of medical records of breast and lung cancer patients hospitalized in years 2003 and 2009 at Penang General Hospital, a public tertiary care center in Penang Island, north of Malaysia. Patients with hypercalcemia (defined as a calcium level above 10.5 mg/dl) at the time of cancer diagnosis or during cancer treatment had their medical history abstracted, including presence of metastasis, chemotherapy types and doses, calcium levels throughout cancer treatment, and other co-morbidity. The mean calcium levels at first hospitalization before chemotherapy were compared with calcium levels at the end of or at the latest chemotherapy treatment. Statistical analysis was conducted using the Chi-square test for categorical data, logistic regression test for categorical variables, and Spearman correlation test, linear regression and the paired sample t tests for continuous data.
RESULTS: Of a total 1,023 of breast cancer and 814 lung cancer patients identified, 292 had hypercalcemia at first hospitalization or during cancer treatment (174 breast and 118 lung cancer patients). About a quarter of these patients had advanced stage cancers: 26.4% had mild hypercalcemia (10.5-11.9 mg/dl), 55.5% had moderate (12-12.9 mg/dl), and 18.2% severe hypercalcemia (13-13.9; 14-16 mg/dl). Chemotherapy lowered calcium levels significantly both in breast and lung cancer patients with hypercalcemia; in particular with chemotherapy type 5-flurouracil+epirubicin+cyclophosphamide (FEC) for breast cancer, and gemcitabine+cisplatin in lung cancer.
CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy decreases calcium levels in breast and lung cancer cases with hypercalcemia at cancer diagnosis, probably by reducing PTHrP levels.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Here we reported the initial experience of aflibercept / FOLFIRI in combination. We evaluated treatment-related adverse events (AEs), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).
RESULTS: The majority of the patients experienced gastrointestinal toxicity (grade 1-2), with diarrhea (52%), mucositis (52%), and nausea/vomiting (20%) being largely observed. Neutropenia (16%) and febrile neutropenia (8%) were common grade 3-4 hematological events. Aflibercept-related toxicity was managed as per practice guidelines. No grade 5 event was reported. Median PFS was 6.12 months (95% CI, 4.80-7.20) and OS was 12 months (95% CI, 9.80-14.18). The partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD) rates were 25% (95% CI: 23.4-27.0), 37.5% (95% CI: 31.6-43.3), and 37.5% (95% CI: 22.5-52.5), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Aflibercept/FOLFIRI can be administered safely in a second line setting to Malaysian patients with mCRC, as the AEs experienced were generally reversible and manageable. The safety and efficacy outcomes were consistent with those observed in Western populations.
METHODS: This is a retrospective study on NDMM patients diagnosed between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2022 in a single academic center. Patients' demographic and treatment details were included for analysis of progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).
RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-six NDMM patients with a median age of 64.0 years (ranged from 38 to 87 years old) were included. Bortezomib-containing regimens were the most commonly used induction agent, followed by thalidomide. Almost half of the patients (47.1%) achieved very good partial response (VGPR) or complete remission (CR), while 31.6% achieved partial response (PR). Bortezomib containing regimen was associated with significantly deeper and more rapid response, (p=0.001 and p=0.017, respectively) when compared to other agents. Only 22.8% of these patients proceeded to upfront autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. The median OS and PFS were 60.0 months and 25.0 months, respectively. Best initial response and upfront autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) were significantly associated with better PFS.
CONCLUSION: Achieving at least a VGPR significantly associated with better outcome in NDMM patients. In a resource constrain country, we recommend incorporating bortezomib in the induction therapy followed with an upfront ASCT.
METHODS: Patients with advanced solid cancers were randomized 1:1 to 3-weekly docetaxel 75 mg/m2, with or without sunitinib 12.5 mg daily for 7 days prior to docetaxel, stratified by primary tumour site. Primary endpoints were objective-response (ORR:CR + PR) and clinical-benefit rate (CBR:CR + PR + SD); secondary endpoints were toxicity and progression-free-survival (PFS).
RESULTS: We enrolled 68 patients from 2 study sites; 33 received docetaxel-sunitinib and 35 docetaxel alone, with 33 breast, 25 lung and 10 patients with other cancers. There was no difference in ORR (30.3% vs 28.6%, p = 0.432, odds-ratio [OR] 1.10, 95% CI 0.38-3.18); CBR was lower in the docetaxel-sunitinib arm (48.5% vs 71.4%, p = 0.027 OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.14-1.01). Median PFS was shorter in the docetaxel-sunitinib arm (2.9 vs 4.9 months, hazard-ratio [HR] 2.00, 95% CI 1.15-3.48, p = 0.014) overall, as well as in breast (4.2 vs 5.6 months, p = 0.048) and other cancers (2.0 vs 5.3 months, p = 0.009), but not in lung cancers (2.9 vs 4.1 months, p = 0.597). Median OS was similar in both arms overall (9.9 vs 10.5 months, HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.51-1.67, p = 0.789), and in the breast (18.9 vs 25.8 months, p = 0.354), lung (7.0 vs 6.7 months, p = 0.970) and other cancers (4.5 vs 8.8 months, p = 0.449) subgroups. Grade 3/4 haematological toxicities were lower with docetaxel-sunitinib (18.2% vs 34.3%, p = 0.132), attributed to greater discretionary use of prophylactic G-CSF (90.9% vs 63.0%, p = 0.024). Grade 3/4 non-haematological toxicities were similar (12.1% vs 14.3%, p = 0.792).
CONCLUSIONS: The addition of sunitinib to docetaxel was well-tolerated but did not improve outcomes. The possible negative impact in metastatic breast cancer patients is contrary to results of adding sunitinib to neoadjuvant AC. These negative results suggest that the intermittent administration of sunitinib in the current dose and schedule with docetaxel in advanced solid tumours, particularly breast cancers, is not beneficial.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered ( NCT01803503 ) prospectively on clinicaltrials.gov on 4th March 2013.
METHODOLOGY: We conducted a longitudinal observational study in gut microbiota profile in a group of paediatric patients diagnosed with ALL using 16 s ribosomal RNA sequencing and compared these patients' microbiota pattern with age and ethnicity-matched healthy children. Temporal changes of gut microbiota in these patients with ALL were also examined at different time-points in relation to chemotherapy.
RESULTS: Prior to commencement of chemotherapy, gut microbiota in children with ALL had larger inter-individual variability compared to healthy controls and was enriched with bacteria belonging to Bacteroidetes phylum and Bacteroides genus. The relative abundance of Bacteroides decreased upon commencement of chemotherapy. Restitution of gut microbiota composition to resemble that of healthy controls occurred after cessation of chemotherapy. However, the microbiota composition (beta diversity) remained distinctive and a few bacteria were different in abundance among the patients with ALL compared to controls despite completion of chemotherapy and presumed restoration of normal health.
CONCLUSION: Our findings in this pilot study is the first to suggest that gut microbiota profile in children with ALL remains marginally different from healthy controls even after cessation of chemotherapy. These persistent microbiota changes may have a role in the long-term wellbeing in childhood cancer survivors but the impact of these changes in subsequent health perturbations in these survivors remain unexplored.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-two patients with AML excluding acute promyelocytic leukemia were retrospectively analyzed. Patients in the earlier cohort (n = 36) were treated on the Medical Research Council (MRC) AML12 protocol, whereas those in the recent cohort (n = 26) were treated on the Malaysia-Singapore AML protocol (MASPORE 2006), which differed in terms of risk group stratification, cumulative anthracycline dose, and timing of hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation for high-risk patients.
RESULTS: Significant improvements in 10-year overall survival and event-free survival were observed in patients treated with the recent MASPORE 2006 protocol compared to the earlier MRC AML12 protocol (overall survival: 88.0% ± 6.5% vs 50.1% ± 8.6%, P = .002; event-free survival: 72.1% ± 9.0 vs 50.1% ± 8.6%, P = .045). In univariate analysis, patients in the recent cohort had significantly lower intensive care unit admission rate (11.5% vs 47.2%, P = .005) and numerically lower relapse rate (26.9% vs 50.0%, P = .068) compared to the earlier cohort. Multivariate analysis showed that treatment protocol was the only independent predictive factor for overall survival (hazard ratio = 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.73, P = .014).
CONCLUSION: Outcomes of pediatric AML patients have improved over time. The more recent MASPORE 2006 protocol led to significant improvement in long-term survival rates and reduction in intensive care unit admission rate.