Methods: A combination of top-down approach and activity-based costing was applied. The standard operating procedure (SOP) for CRC was developed for each stage according to national data and guidelines at the University of Malaya Medical Centre (UMMC). The unit cost was calculated and incorporated into the treatment pathway in order to obtain the total cost of managing a single CRC patient according to the stage of illness. The cost data were represented by means and standard deviation and the results were demonstrated by tabulation. All cost data are presented in Malaysian Ringgit (RM). The cost difference between early stage (Stage I) and late stage (Stage II-IV) was analysed using independent t-test.
Results: The cost per patient increased with stage of CRC, from RM13,672 (USD4,410.30) for stage I, to RM27,972 (USD9,023.20) for Stage IV. The early stage had statistically significant lower cost compared to late stage t(2) = -4.729, P = 0.042. The highest fraction of the cost was related to surgery for Stage I, but was superseded by oncology day care treatment for Stages II-IV. CRC is a costly illness. From a provider perspective, the highest cost was found in Stages III and IV. The early stages conserved more resources than did the advanced stages of cancer.
Conclusion: Early diagnosis and management of CRC, therefore, not only affects oncologic prognosis, but has implications for health care costs. This adds further justification to develop and implement CRC screening programmes in Malaysia.
METHODS: PSAV was calculated using logistic regression to determine if PSA or PSAV predicted the result of prostate biopsy (PB) in men with elevated PSA values. Cox regression was used to determine whether PSA or PSAV predicted PSA elevation in men with low PSAs. Interaction terms were included in the models to determine whether BRCA status influenced the predictiveness of PSA or PSAV.
RESULTS: 1634 participants had ⩾3 PSA readings of whom 174 underwent PB and 45 PrCas diagnosed. In men with PSA >3.0 ng ml-l, PSAV was not significantly associated with presence of cancer or high-grade disease. PSAV did not add to PSA for predicting time to an elevated PSA. When comparing BRCA1/2 carriers to non-carriers, we found a significant interaction between BRCA status and last PSA before biopsy (P=0.031) and BRCA2 status and PSAV (P=0.024). However, PSAV was not predictive of biopsy outcome in BRCA2 carriers.
CONCLUSIONS: PSA is more strongly predictive of PrCa in BRCA carriers than non-carriers. We did not find evidence that PSAV aids decision-making for BRCA carriers over absolute PSA value alone.
METHODS: In total, 299 SNPs previously associated with prostate cancer were evaluated for inclusion in a new PHS, using a LASSO-regularized Cox proportional hazards model in a training dataset of 72,181 men from the PRACTICAL Consortium. The PHS model was evaluated in four testing datasets: African ancestry, Asian ancestry, and two of European Ancestry-the Cohort of Swedish Men (COSM) and the ProtecT study. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated to compare men with high versus low PHS for association with clinically significant, with any, and with fatal prostate cancer. The impact of genetic risk stratification on the positive predictive value (PPV) of PSA testing for clinically significant prostate cancer was also measured.
RESULTS: The final model (PHS290) had 290 SNPs with non-zero coefficients. Comparing, for example, the highest and lowest quintiles of PHS290, the hazard ratios (HRs) for clinically significant prostate cancer were 13.73 [95% CI: 12.43-15.16] in ProtecT, 7.07 [6.58-7.60] in African ancestry, 10.31 [9.58-11.11] in Asian ancestry, and 11.18 [10.34-12.09] in COSM. Similar results were seen for association with any and fatal prostate cancer. Without PHS stratification, the PPV of PSA testing for clinically significant prostate cancer in ProtecT was 0.12 (0.11-0.14). For the top 20% and top 5% of PHS290, the PPV of PSA testing was 0.19 (0.15-0.22) and 0.26 (0.19-0.33), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate better genetic risk stratification for clinically significant prostate cancer than prior versions of PHS in multi-ancestry datasets. This is promising for implementing precision-medicine approaches to prostate cancer screening decisions in diverse populations.
METHODS: Baseline awareness and impact of the campaign was measured using self-administered questionnaires sent via email to individuals. The campaign was aired on two national television channels and the reach was monitored through an independent programme monitoring system.
RESULTS: 78.2% of respondents had heard of oral cancer, and this increased significantly after the campaign. However, the ability to recognize signs and symptoms remains unchanged. We found that the level of awareness differed between the distinct ethnic subgroups and the reach of the campaign was not uniform across all ethnicities.
CONCLUSION: This substantial study to measure the oral cancer awareness in Malaysia provides important baseline data for the planning of public health policies. Despite encouraging evidence that a mass media campaign could increase the awareness of oral cancer, further research is required to address the acceptability, comprehensiveness and effectiveness. Furthermore, different campaign approaches may be required for specific ethnic groups in a multi-ethnic country such as Malaysia.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence and sociodemographic factors predicting high-risk HPV infection in Malaysia based on a public, community-based cervical cancer screening registry targeting women at risk of getting HPV infection.
METHODS: The study used data from the Malaysian cervical cancer screening registry established by the Family Health Development Division from 2019 to 2021. The registry recorded sociodemographic data, HPV test details and results of eligible women who underwent HPV screening at public primary healthcare facilities. A vaginal sample (via self-sampling or assisted by a healthcare provider) was used for DNA extraction for HPV detection and genotyping. Registry data were extracted and analysed to determine prevalence estimates of high-risk HPV infection. Multifactorial logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine predictors of high-risk HPV infection. All analyses were performed using Stata version 14.
RESULTS: The programme screened a total of 36,738 women during the study period. Women who attended the screening programme were mainly from urban areas, aged 30-39 years, and of Malay ethnicity. The prevalence of high-risk HPV infection was 4.53% among women screened, with the yearly prevalence ranging from 4.27 to 4.80%. A higher prevalence was observed among urban settling women, those aged 30-49 years, those of Indian ethnicity, and those without children. The results from logistic regression showed that women from urban areas, lower age groups, of Indian or Chinese ethnicity, and who are self-employed were more likely to be infected with high-risk HPV.
CONCLUSION: Targeted and robust strategies to reach identified high-risk groups are needed in Malaysia. In addition, the registry has the potential to be expanded for an improved cervical cancer elimination plan.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration number: NMRR ID-22-00187-DJU.