METHODS: Individual semi-structured interviews with 22 people (health professionals, cancer survivors, community volunteers and member from a non-governmental organization) and four focus group discussions (n = 22 participants) with women from a local community were conducted. All participants were purposively sampled and female residents registered with the South East Asia Community Observatory aged ≥40 years were eligible to participate in the focus group discussions. Data were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis.
RESULTS: The thematic analysis illuminated barriers, challenges and opportunities across six domains: (i) personal experiences and barriers to help-seeking as well as financial and travel access barriers; (ii) primary care challenges (related to delivering clinical breast examination and teaching breast-self-examination); (iii) secondary care challenges (related to mammogram services); (iv) disconnection between secondary and primary care breast cancer screening pathways; and (v) opportunities to improve breast cancer early detection relating to community civil service society activities (i.e. awareness raising, support groups, addressing stigma/embarrassment and encouraging husbands to support women) and vi) links between public healthcare personnel and community (i.e. improving breast self-examination education, clinical breast examination provision and subsidised mammograms).
CONCLUSION: The results point to a variety of reasons for low uptake and, therefore, to the complex nature of improving breast cancer screening and early detection. There is a need to adopt a systems approach to address this complexity and to take account of the socio-cultural context of communities in order, in turn, to strengthen cancer control policy and practices in Malaysia.
METHODS: A survey was conducted among 103 female teachers from 10 schools. SPSS version 22.0 was utilized in analyzing the data. Descriptive statistics were computed for the socio-demographic characteristics. The Cronbach's alpha coefficients were used in assessing the internal reliability. The Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was used to analyze the factor structure of the translated items. Parallel analysis was performed to determine the number of factors accurately.
RESULTS: The alpha coefficients of the factors had acceptable values ranging between 0.76 and 0.87. The factor analysis yielded six and five factors for breast self-examination (BSE) and mammography (MMG), with a total explained variance of 47.69% and 52.63%, respectively. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) index values of 0.64 and 0.72, and the Bartlett's Test of Sphericity (P = 0.0001) for BSE and MMG, respectively, verified the normality distribution and the adequacy of the sample size for EFA. All the items on each factor were from the same construct that were consistent with the number of factors obtained in the scale development study. The items achieved adequate factor loadings that ranged between 0.47 and 0.88.
CONCLUSIONS: The translated version of the CHBMS is a validated scale used in assessing the beliefs related to BC and BCS among Yemeni women living in Malaysia. Healthcare workers could use the scales to assess women's beliefs on BC and BCS. This instrument could be used to test the effectiveness of the intervention programs.
METHODS: In this cohort study, we interviewed 328 women with histologically confirmed breast cancer at five medical centres in Malaysia. Times were measured from recognition of symptoms to first consultation to diagnosis and to the first definitive treatment. The event was initiation of definitive treatment. Data was analysed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression.
RESULTS: The mean age was 47.9 (standard deviation 9.4) years and 79.9% were ethnic Malays. The median follow-up time was 6.9 months. The median times for first doctor consultation, diagnosis and initiation of treatment were 2 months, 5.5 months and 2.4 weeks, respectively. The percentage of consultation delay more than a month was 66.8%, diagnosis delay more than three months was 73.2% and treatment delay more than one month was 11.6%. Factors associated with not initiating the definitive treatment were pregnancy (adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) 1.75; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.07, 2.88), taking complementary alternative medicine (AHR 1.45; 95% CI: 1.15, 1.83), initial refusal of mastectomy (AHR 3.49; 95% CI: 2.38, 5.13) and undergoing lumpectomy prior to definitive treatment (AHR 1.62; 95% CI: 1.16, 2.28).
CONCLUSIONS: Delays in diagnosis and consultation were more serious than treatment delays. Most respondents would accept treatment immediately after diagnosis. Respondents themselves were responsible for a large proportion of the delays. This study was successful in understanding the process of breast cancer patients' experience, from symptoms recognition to consultation, diagnosis and treatment.
METHODS: An analytical cross-sectional study was conducted in a government health clinic of Penang from March to August 2019. Asymptomatic clinic attendees aged 50-75 years who had no prior awareness of CRC screening were recruited by systematic random sampling technique. Participants first received a standardised one to one health education, followed by an interview using a standardised questionnaire to assess their CRC screening intention and the relevant motivators and barriers. A submission of a sample for immunochemical faecal occult blood test (iFOBT) was considered as an uptake of the CRC screening.
RESULTS: A total of 546 participants participated in this study. The mean age of the participants was 62.8 (SD=6.36). Majority of them were females (57.3%), Chinese (78.6%), who had attained primary or higher education (92.0%) and had comorbidities (87.0%). After a brief health education, 231 participants (42.3%) agreed to undergo iFOBT. The actual screening uptake rate in this study was 28%. Perceived benefit of the test (84.4%) was the most common motivators, while self-perceived non-vulnerability was the biggest impediment to CRC screening intention. Physicians' recommendation was the perceived most effective way in raising CRC awareness.
CONCLUSION: Participants prefer physicians to provide health education. Standardised brief health education is inadequate to stimulate CRC screening adherence. Future interventions will require in-depth understanding of patients' beliefs, risk perception, and affective responses.
Case presentation: We present a case of 15-year-old boy from rural area, presented with chronic diarrhea and per rectal bleeding for 3 months. The diagnosis was determined by colonoscope which revealed a fungating mass identified at 10cm from anal verge. Histological examination confirmed diagnosis of signet ring cell adenocarcinoma. CT scan of the abdomen showed thickening involving the recto-sigmoid colon and rectal mass, without evidence of distant metastatic disease. The patient's carcinoembryonic antigen level was within the normal range. He underwent a colostomy and was subjected to neoadjuvant CCRT and surgery.
Discussion: This CASE highlights the importance and challenges in achieving early diagnosis and surgical intervention of signet-ring cell carcinoma in adolescents, as most cases are detected at an advanced stage coupled with the scarcity of information on these rarer subtypes which leads to a poor prognosis.
Conclusion: In managing Signet cell carcinoma of the colorectal, physician have to know that it has a poor prognosis in patients of any age. However, in young teenagers delayed diagnosis and treatment option are narrowed to palliative management. Genetic profiling of family members and similar environment population may be a key to early detection.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study where women aged between 20-80 years were recruited via convenient sampling from villages in Long Banga, Sarawak over a five-day outreach programme. Cervicovaginal selfsamples were obtained and screened for the presence of high-risk human papillomavirus DNA (HR-HPV) using the careHPVTM Test. A self-administered questionnaire was also administered to determine the sociodemographic and perception towards the self-sampling method.
RESULTS: The 55 women recruited consist of ethnic backgrounds of Penan (58.18%), Kenyah (25.45%), Iban (5.45%), Saban (3.64%), Kelabit (3.64%), Malay (1.82%) and Chinese (1.82%). The prevalence of HR-HPV was 1.85% (n=1/55). Nearly 80% of the women were unemployed, and more than half have had attended primary education. Nine (16.4%) have heard about HPV, and seven (13%) knew HPV infection could cause cervical cancer. Three of them had HPV vaccination, and only one (1.85%) knew the brand of the HPV vaccine. Although 40% preferred self-sampling over clinician-collection, only ten (18.2%) women have completed the self-collection perception questionnaire.
CONCLUSION: Primary HPV DNA screening using the selfsampling method can be carried out in the remote areas during the COVID-19 pandemic without compromising mobility restriction.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted at five government-run health clinics in the state of Selangor. Adults with an average risk of colorectal cancer (age > 50 years, asymptomatic, and no family history of colorectal cancer) were recruited using systematic random sampling. An interviewer-administered questionnaire adapted from the Cancer Awareness Measure and Health Belief Model was used.
RESULTS: The median age of participants was 61 years (interquartile range, 56 to 66). Almost 60% of participants indicated their willingness to be screened. However, only 7.5% had undergone iFOBT. Good knowledge of risk factors of colorectal cancer, perceived susceptibility to the disease, and the doctor's recommendation were associated with increased willingness to be screened: adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 1.66 (95% CI, 1.12 to 2.46); aOR, 1.70 (95% CI, 1.08 to 2.70); and aOR, 5.76 (95% CI, 2.13 to 15.57), respectively. Nevertheless, being elderly (aOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.99) and high negative perception toward the testing method (iFOBT) (aOR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.30) were independently associated with lower willingness to be screened. Multivariable analysis within the average-risk individuals who were willing to be screened for colorectal cancer showed that the doctor's recommendations remained as an important cue for positive action, whereas negative perception toward the test was a significant barrier to the actual uptake of iFOBT.
CONCLUSION: The present findings must be factored in when tailoring colorectal cancer screening promotion activities in multiethnic, middle-income settings.
METHODS: The structures of all synthesized compounds were characterized by physicochemical properties and spectral means (IR and NMR). The synthesized compounds were evaluated for their in vitro antimicrobial activity against Gram-positive (B. subtilis), Gram-negative (P. aeruginosa and E. coli) bacterial and fungal (C. albicans and A. niger) strains by tube dilution method using ciprofloxacin, amoxicillin and fluconazole as standards. In-vitro antioxidant and anti-urease screening was done by DPPH assay and indophenol method, respectively. The in-vitro anticancer evaluation was carried out against MCF-7 and HCT116 cancer cell lines using 5-FU as standards.
RESULTS, DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The biological screening results reveal that the compounds T5 (MICBS, EC = 24.7 µM, MICPA, CA = 12.3 µM) and T17 (MICAN = 27.1 µM) exhibited potent antimicrobial activity as comparable to standards ciprofloxacin, amoxicillin (MICCipro = 18.1 µM, MICAmo = 17.1 µM) and fluconazole (MICFlu = 20.4 µM), respectively. The antioxidant evaluation showed that compounds T2 (IC50 = 34.83 µg/ml) and T3 (IC50 = 34.38 µg/ml) showed significant antioxidant activity and comparable to ascorbic acid (IC50 = 35.44 µg/ml). Compounds T3 (IC50 = 54.01 µg/ml) was the most potent urease inhibitor amongst the synthesized compounds and compared to standard thiourea (IC50 = 54.25 µg/ml). The most potent anticancer activity was shown by compounds T2 (IC50 = 3.84 μM) and T7 (IC50 = 3.25 μM) against HCT116 cell lines as compared to standard 5-FU (IC50 = 25.36 μM).
METHODS: We collected data from 7954 asymptomatic subjects (age, 50-75 y) who received screening colonoscopy examinations at 14 sites in Asia. We randomly assigned 5303 subjects to the derivation cohort and the remaining 2651 to the validation cohort. We collected data from the derivation cohort on age, sex, family history of colorectal cancer, smoking, drinking, body mass index, medical conditions, and use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or aspirin. Associations between the colonoscopic findings of APN and each risk factor were examined using the Pearson χ2 test, and we assigned each participant a risk score (0-15), with scores of 0 to 3 as average risk and scores of 4 or higher as high risk. The scoring system was tested in the validation cohort. We used the Cochran-Armitage test of trend to compare the prevalence of APN among subjects in each group.
RESULTS: In the validation cohort, 79.5% of patients were classified as average risk and 20.5% were classified as high risk. The prevalence of APN in the average-risk group was 1.9% and in the high-risk group was 9.4% (adjusted relative risk, 5.08; 95% CI, 3.38-7.62; P < .001). The score included age (61-70 y, 3; ≥70 y, 4), smoking habits (current/past, 2), family history of colorectal cancer (present in a first-degree relative, 2), and the presence of neoplasia in the distal colorectum (nonadvanced adenoma 5-9 mm, 2; advanced neoplasia, 7). The c-statistic of the score was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.68-0.79), and for distal findings alone was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.60-0.74). The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test statistic was greater than 0.05, indicating the reliability of the validation set. The number needed to refer was 11 (95% CI, 10-13), and the number needed to screen was 15 (95% CI, 12-17).
CONCLUSIONS: We developed and validated a scoring system to identify persons at risk for APN. Screening participants who undergo flexible sigmoidoscopy screening with a score of 4 points or higher should undergo colonoscopy evaluation.