METHODS: We conducted an in-depth qualitative interview on 20 participants from a cohort study. An ecological framework was used to construct the semi-structured topic guide. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis with theoretical saturation was used in data analysis.
RESULTS: The participants were found to have variable dietary practices that either followed or did not follow dietary recommendations. The social environment was critical as most women relied on family and friends for food choices; additionally, individuals in charge of food preparation had to prepare food based on their family member preferences. Furthermore, individuals had difficulty sustaining healthy dietary changes during the acute survivorship phase due to a lack of health consciousness and difficulty in healthy food access. Notably, there was a lack of dietary guidance from health care professionals, especially dietitians, in long-term survivorship care.
CONCLUSION: This study highlights the lack of breast cancer survivors' healthy diet and lifestyle knowledge. A holistic multidisciplinary approach involving individual, social, physical, and macro-level environmental elements are crucial to influencing healthy eating behaviours.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed at two chemotherapy providers. Patients were questioned about use of three categories of CAM, mind-body practices (MBPs), natural products (NPs) and traditional medicine (TM). PFH was also examined separately from CAM to better characterise the patterns of CAM and PFH used during chemotherapy.
RESULTS: A total of 546 eligible patients participated in the study; 70.7% (n = 386) reported using some form of CAM, and 29.3% (n = 160) were non-CAM users. When PFH was excluded as a CAM, fewer patients reported the use of CAM (66.1%; n = 361). The total number of patients who used MBPs decreased from 342 to 183. The most common CAM use category was NPs (82.8%), followed by MBPs (50.7%), and TM (35.7%). CAM users were more likely to have a tertiary education (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.15-3.89 vs. primary/lower), have household incomes > RM 3,000 (≈944 USD) per month (OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.40-3.84 vs. ≤RM 3,000 (≈944 USD)), and have advanced cancer (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.18-2.59 vs. early stage cancer), compared with non-CAM users. The CAM users were less likely to have their chemotherapy on schedule (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10-0.58 vs. chemotherapy postponed) than non-CAM users. Most MBPs were perceived to be more helpful by their users, compared with the users of NPs and TM.
CONCLUSION: CAM use was prevalent among breast cancer patients. Excluding PFH from the definition of CAM reduced the prevalence of overall CAM use. Overall, CAM use was associated with higher education levels and household incomes, advanced cancer and lower chemotherapy schedule compliance. Many patients perceived MBP to be beneficial for improving overall well-being during chemotherapy. These findings, while preliminary, clearly indicate the differences in CAM use when PFH is included in, and excluded from, the definition of CAM.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who were treated with first line palliative chemotherapy for de novo MBC from 2002-2011 in UMMC were identified from the UMMC Breast Cancer Registry. Information collected included patient demographics, histopathological features, treatment received, including the different chemotherapy regimens, and presence of FN and TRD. FN was defined as an oral temperature >38.5° or two consecutive readings of >38.0° for 2 hours and an absolute neutrophil count <0.5x109/L, or expected to fall below 0.5x109/L (de Naurois et al, 2010). TRD was defined as death occurring during or within 30 days of the last chemotherapy treatment, as a consequence of the chemotherapy treatment. Statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS version 18.0 software. Survival probabilities were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and differences in survival compared using log-rank test.
RESULTS: Between 1st January 2002 and 31st December 2011, 424 patients with MBC were treated in UMMC. A total of 186 out of 221 patients with de novo MBC who received first line palliative chemotherapy were analyzed. The mean age of patients in this study was 49.5 years (range 24 to 74 years). Biologically, ER status was negative in 54.4% of patients and Her-2 status was positive in 31.1%. A 5-flourouracil, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide (FEC) chemotherapy regimen was chosen for 86.6% of the cases. Most patients had multiple metastatic sites (58.6%). The main result of this study showed a FN rate of 5.9% and TRD rate of 3.2%. The median survival (MS) for the entire cohort was 19 months. For those with multiple metastatic sites, liver only, lung only, bone only and brain only metastatic sites, the MS was 18, 24, 19, 24 and 8 months respectively (p-value= 0.319).
CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, we surmise that FEC is a safe regimen with acceptable FN and TRD rates for de novo MBC.
METHODS: We studied 522 patients who underwent mastectomy between 1998 and 2002 and followed them up until 2008. We defined PMLRR as recurrence to the axilla, supraclavicular nodes and or chest wall. ILR was defined as PMLRR occurring as an isolated event. Prognostic factors for locoregional recurrence were determined using the Cox proportional hazards regression model.
RESULTS: The overall PMLRR rate was 16.4%. ILR developed in 42 of 522 patients (8.0%). Within this subgroup, 25 (59.5%) remained disease free after treatment while 17 (40.5%) suffered disease progression. Univariate analyses identified race, age, size, stage, margin involvement, lymph node involvement, grade, lymphovascular invasion and ER status as probable prognostic factors for ILR. Cox regression resulted in only stage III disease and margin involvement as independent prognostic factors. The hazard of ILR was 2.5 times higher when the margins were involved compared to when they were clear (aHRR 2.5; 95% CI 1.3 to 5.0). Similarly, compared with stage I those with Stage II (aHRR 2.1; 95%CI 0.6 to 6.8) and stage III (aHRR 4.6; 95%CI 1.4 to 15.9) had worse prognosis for ILR.
CONCLUSION: Margin involvement and stage III disease were identified to be independent prognostic factors for ILR. Close follow-up of high risk patients and prompt treatment of locoregional recurrence were recommended.
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.