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.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who were treated with adjuvant taxane-based chemotherapy for early breast cancer stages I, II or III from 2007-2011 in UMMC were identified from our UMMC Breast Cancer Registry. The TRD and FN rates were then determined retrospectively from medical records. TRD was defined as death occurring during or within 30 days of completing chemotherapy as a consequence of the chemotherapy treatment. FN was defined as an oral temperature >38.5°C or two consecutive readings of >38.0°C for 2 hours and an absolute neutrophil count <0.5x109/L, or expected to fall below 0.5x109/L.
RESULTS: A total of 622 patients received adjuvant chemotherapy during this period. Of these patients 209 (33.6%) received taxane-based chemotherapy. 4 taxane-based regimens were used namely the FEC-D, TC, TAC and AC-PCX regimens. The commonest regimen employed was the FEC-D regimen accounting for 79.9% of the patients. The FN rate was 10% and there was no TRD.
CONCLUSION: Adjuvant taxane-based chemotherapy in UMMC for early breast cancer has a FN rate of 10%. Primary prophylactic G-CSF should be considered for patients with any additional risk factor for FN.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic online search was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement. Eligible publications reporting the overall survival (OS) and/or disease-specific survival (DSS) were included. A total of 14 studies, including 17,869 patients, were considered for analysis. The impact of therapeutic modalities on survival was assessed, with a risk of bias assessment according to the Newcastle Ottawa Scale.
RESULTS: For RP, RT, and HT, the mean 10-year OS was 70.7% (95% CI 61.3-80.2), 65.8% (95% CI 48.1-83.3), and 22.6% (95% CI 4.9-40.3; p = 0.001), respectively. The corresponding 10-year DSS was 84.1% (95% CI 75.1-93.2), 89.4% (95% CI 70.1-108.6), and 50.4% (95% CI 31.2-69.6; p = 0.0127), respectively. Among all treatment combinations, RP displayed significant improvement in OS when included in the treatment (Z = 4.01; p < 0.001). Adjuvant RT significantly improved DSS (Z = 2.7; p = 0.007). Combination of RT and HT favored better OS in comparison to monotherapy with RT or HT (Z = 3.61; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Improved outcomes in advanced PC were detected for RP plus adjuvant RT vs. RP alone and RT plus adjuvant HT vs. RT alone with comparable survival results between both regimens. RP with adjuvant RT may present the modality of choice when HT is contraindicated.
METHODS: ASCO convened a multidisciplinary, multinational Expert Panel that reviewed existing guidelines and conducted a modified ADAPTE process and a formal consensus process with additional experts for one round of formal ratings.
RESULTS: Existing sets of guidelines from 12 guideline developers were identified and reviewed; adapted recommendations from six guidelines form the evidence base and provide evidence to inform the formal consensus process, which resulted in agreement of 75% or more on all recommendations.
RECOMMENDATIONS: For nonmaximal settings, the recommended treatments for colon cancer stages nonobstructing, I-IIA: in basic and limited, open resection; in enhanced, adequately trained surgeons and laparoscopic or minimally invasive surgery, unless contraindicated. Treatments for IIB-IIC: in basic and limited, open en bloc resection following standard oncologic principles, if not possible, transfer to higher-level facility; in emergency, limit to life-saving procedures; in enhanced, laparoscopic en bloc resection, if not possible, then open. Treatments for obstructing, IIB-IIC: in basic, resection and/or diversion; in limited or enhanced, emergency surgical resection. Treatment for IIB-IIC with left-sided: in enhanced, may place colonic stent. Treatment for T4N0/T3N0 high-risk features or stage II high-risk obstructing: in enhanced, may offer adjuvant chemotherapy. Treatment for rectal cancer cT1N0 and cT2n0: in basic, limited, or enhanced, total mesorectal excision principles. Treatment for cT3n0: in basic and limited, total mesorectal excision, if not, diversion. Treatment for high-risk patients who did not receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy: in basic, limited, or enhanced, may offer adjuvant therapy. Treatment for resectable cT3N0 rectal cancer: in enhanced, base neoadjuvant chemotherapy on preoperative factors. For post-treatment surveillance, a combination of medical history, physical examination, carcinoembryonic antigen testing, imaging, and endoscopy is performed. Frequency depends on setting. Maximal setting recommendations are in the guideline. Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/resource-stratified-guidelines .
NOTICE: It is the view of the American Society of Clinical Oncology that health care providers and health care system decision makers should be guided by the recommendations for the highest stratum of resources available. The guidelines are intended to complement but not replace local guidelines.
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.
Purpose: This study was conducted to explore attitude and practice on using AET among breast cancer patients in Malaysia.
Patients and Methods: Postmenopausal breast cancer patients on at least 3 months of AET attending the outpatient oncology clinic at a tertiary care hospital were interviewed. Patients underwent in-depth interviews exploring their attitude and practices while on AET using a semi-structured interview guide. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis.
Results: There were four main themes for attitude toward the use of AET: 1) benefits of using AET, 2) concerns on taking AET, 3) beliefs on alternative treatment, and 4) beliefs toward the doctor. For practice, six themes were obtained: 1) correct use of AET, 2) appointment adherence, 3) information-seeking behavior, 4) counseling services obtained, 5) experienced side effects of AET, and 6) usage of complementary and alternative medicines.
Conclusion: Several themes concerning attitude and practice of breast cancer patients receiving AET were identified, which may be addressed during treatment consultations in clinical practice.