METHODS: This historical cohort study included women who underwent mastectomy after diagnosis with stage 0 to stage IIIa breast cancer from 2011 to 2015 in a tertiary hospital. Multivariable regression analyses were used to assess factors associated with immediate breast reconstruction and to measure clinical outcomes.
RESULT: Out of 790 patients with early breast cancer who had undergone mastectomy, only 68 (8.6%) received immediate breast reconstruction. Immediate breast reconstruction was independently associated with younger age at diagnosis, recent calendar years, Chinese ethnicity, higher education level, and invasive ductal carcinomas. Although immediate breast reconstruction was associated with a higher risk of short-term local surgical complications (adjusted odds ratio: 3.58 [95% confidence interval 1.75-7.30]), there were no significant differences in terms of delay in initiation of chemotherapy, 5-year disease-free survival, and 5-year overall survival between both groups in the multivariable analyses.
CONCLUSION: Although associated with short-term surgical complications, immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy does not appear to be associated with delays in initiation of chemotherapy, recurrence, or mortality after breast cancer. These findings are valuable in facilitating shared surgical decision-making, improving access to immediate breast reconstruction, and setting priorities for surgical trainings in middle-income settings.
METHODS: Two prospective groups of 423 and 965 newly diagnosed breast cancer patients in University of Malaya Medical Centre, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia diagnosed in two time periods ie. 1993 to 1997 and in 1998 to 2002 were studied. Vital status was obtained from the National Registry of Births and Deaths. The overall survival was calculated from the date of diagnosis to the date of death from any cause. The survival differences between the two groups were analysed using the log-rank or Peto-Wilcoxon method. Survival estimates and independent prognostic factors were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and multivariate analysis using Cox proportional hazard models. P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Analyses were performed using SPlus 2000 Professional Release 2.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Median follow-up for the two groups were 55 months (SD 29.2 months) in the first group and 52 months (SD 24.43) in the second group. There was improvement in 5-year observed survival from 58.4% (CI 0.54-0.63) to 75.7% (CI 0.73-0.79). The improvement in survival was significantly seen in all co-variates (p< 0.05) except for those aged 40 years and below (p= 0.27), tumour size 2 to 5 cm (p=0.11), grade 3 (p=0.32) and patients with Stage IV disease (p= 0.80). Stage of disease, lymph node (LN) involvement, size and grade were identified as independent prognostic factors in cohort one. For the second cohort; stage and LN involvement remained independent factors with the addition of ER status and ethnicity.
CONCLUSIONS: There was improvement in 5-year observed survival. Besides known prognostic factors, Malay ethnicity was an independent prognostic factor.
METHODS: Germline DNA from 467 breast cancer patients in Sarawak General Hospital, Malaysia, where 93% of the breast cancer patients in Sarawak are treated, was sequenced for the entire coding region of BRCA1; BRCA2; PALB2; Exons 6, 7, and 8 of TP53; and Exons 7 and 8 of PTEN. Pathogenic variants included known pathogenic variants in ClinVar, loss of function variants, and variants that disrupt splice site.
RESULTS: We found 27 pathogenic variants (11 BRCA1, 10 BRCA2, 4 PALB2, and 2 TP53) in 34 patients, which gave a prevalence of germline mutations of 2.8, 3.23, and 0.86% for BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2, respectively. Compared to mutation non-carriers, BRCA1 mutation carriers were more likely to have an earlier age at onset, triple-negative subtype, and lower body mass index, whereas BRCA2 mutation carriers were more likely to have a positive family history. Mutation carrier cases had worse survival compared to non-carriers; however, the association was mostly driven by stage and tumor subtype. We also identified 19 variants of unknown significance, and some of them were predicted to alter splicing or transcription factor binding sites.
CONCLUSION: Our data provide insight into the genetics of breast cancer in this understudied group and suggest the need for modifying genetic testing guidelines for this population with a much younger age at diagnosis and more limited resources compared with Caucasian populations.
METHODS: We established PN in a dedicated breast clinic of a Malaysian state-run hospital. We compared diagnostic and treatment timeliness between navigated patients (n = 135) and patients diagnosed in the prior year (n = 148), and described factors associated with timeliness.
RESULTS: Women with PN received timely mammography compared with patients in the prior year (96.4% v 74.4%; P < .001), biopsy (92.5% v 76.1%; P = .003), and communication of news (80.0% v 58.5%; P < .001). PN reduced treatment default rates (4.4% v 11.5%; P = .048). Among navigated patients, late stage at presentation was independently associated with having emotional and language barriers ( P = .01). Finally, the main reason reported for delay, default, or refusal of treatment was the preference for alternative therapy.
CONCLUSION: PN is feasible for addressing barriers to cancer care when integrated with a state-run breast clinic of an LMIC. Its implementation resulted in improved diagnostic timeliness and reduced treatment default. Wider adoption of PN could be a key element of cancer control in LMICs.