METHOD: Publicly available data, and databases of registered palliative care services were obtained from governmental and nongovernmental sources. Google Maps and Rome2Rio web-based applications were used to assess geographical disparities by estimating the median distance, travel time, and travel costs from every Malaysian district to the closest palliative care service.
RESULTS: Substantial variations in availability, components, and accessibility (distance, time, and cost to access care) of palliative care services were observed. In the highly developed Central Region of Peninsular Malaysia, specialty care was available within 4 km whereas in the less-developed East Coast of Peninsular Malaysia, patients had to travel approximately 46 km. In the predominantly rural East Malaysia, basic palliative care services were 82 km away and, in some instances, where land connectivity was scarce, it took 2.5 h to access care via boat. The corresponding median travel costs were USD2 (RM9) and USD23 (RM114) in Peninsular Malaysia and East Malaysia.
CONCLUSION: The stark urban-rural divide in the availability and accessibility of palliative care services even in a setting that has made good progress toward UHC highlights the urgent need for decentralization of palliative care in the LMICs. This may be achieved by capacity building and task shifting in primary care and community settings.
METHODS: We conducted an overview of cancer screening in the region with the goal of summarizing current designs of cancer screening programs. First, a selective narrative literature review was used as an exploration to identify countries with organized screening programs. Second, representatives of each country with an organized program were approached and asked to provide relevant information on the organizations of their national or regional cancer screening program.
RESULTS: There was wide variation in the screening strategies offered in the considered region with only eight programs identified as having an organized design. The majority of these programs did not meet all the essential criteria for being organized screening. The greatest variation was observed in the starting and stopping ages.
CONCLUSIONS: Essential criteria of organized screening are missed. Improving organization is crucial to ensure that the beneficial effects of screening are achieved in the long-term. It is strongly recommended to consider a regional cancer screening network.
METHODS: In total, 2,008 Malaysian adults with no previous cancer were surveyed using a 42-item questionnaire adapted from the Awareness Measure and the Cancer Awareness Measure-Mythical Causes Scale. Partial least squares structural equation modeling was used to evaluate measurement models.
RESULTS: Despite high educational attainment, only about half of the respondents believed that 7 of the 21 listed established risk factors caused cancer. Factors associated with accurate beliefs included higher socioeconomic status (SES) and having family or friends with cancer. However, 14 of the 21 listed mythical/unproven factors were correctly believed as not cancer-causing by the majority. Women and those with lower SES were more likely to hold misconceptions. Beliefs on established risk factors were significantly associated with perceived risk of cancer. Individuals with stronger beliefs in established risk factors were less likely to be associated with healthy behaviors. Conversely, stronger beliefs in mythical or unproven factors were more likely to be associated with healthy lifestyles.
CONCLUSION: Findings highlight the importance of prioritizing cancer literacy as a key action area in national cancer control plans. The counterintuitive associations between cancer beliefs and lifestyle emphasize the complexity of this relationship, necessitating nuanced approaches to promote cancer literacy and preventive behaviors.
METHODS: Through the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Costs in Oncology study, 1490 newly diagnosed cancer patients were followed-up in Malaysia for 1 year. Health-related quality of life was assessed by using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and EuroQol-5 (EQ-5D) dimension questionnaires at baseline, 3 and 12 months. Psychological distress was assessed by using Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Data were modeled by using general linear and logistic regressions analyses.
RESULTS: One year after diagnosis, the mean EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health score of the cancer survivors remained low at 53.0 over 100 (SD 21.4). Fifty-four percent of survivors reported at least moderate levels of anxiety, while 27% had at least moderate levels of depression. Late stage at diagnosis was the strongest predictor of low HRQoL. Increasing age, being married, high-income status, hospital type, presence of comorbidities, and chemotherapy administration were also associated with worse HRQoL. The significant predictors of psychological distress were cancer stage and hospital type.
CONCLUSION: Cancer survivors in this middle-income setting have persistently impaired HRQoL and high levels of psychological distress. Development of a holistic cancer survivorship program addressing wider aspects of well-being is urgently needed in our settings.
METHODS: Through the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Costs in Oncology study, 1,294 newly diagnosed patients with cancer (Ministry of Health [MOH] hospitals [n = 577], a public university hospital [n = 642], private hospitals [n = 75]) were observed in Malaysia. Cost diaries and questionnaires were used to measure incidence of financial toxicity, encompassing financial catastrophe (FC; out-of-pocket costs ≥ 30% of annual household income), medical impoverishment (decrease in household income from above the national poverty line to below that line after subtraction of cancer-related costs), and economic hardship (inability to make necessary household payments). Predictors of financial toxicity were determined using multivariable analyses.
RESULTS: One fifth of patients had private health insurance. Incidence of FC at 1 year was 51% (MOH hospitals, 33%; public university hospital, 65%; private hospitals, 72%). Thirty-three percent of households were impoverished at 1 year. Economic hardship was reported by 47% of families. Risk of FC attributed to conventional medical care alone was 18% (MOH hospitals, 5%; public university hospital, 24%; private hospitals, 67%). Inclusion of expenditures on nonmedical goods and services inflated the risk of financial toxicity in public hospitals. Low-income status, type of hospital, and lack of health insurance were strong predictors of FC.
CONCLUSION: Patients with cancer may not be fully protected against financial hardships, even in settings with universal health coverage. Nonmedical costs also contribute as important drivers of financial toxicity in these settings.
OBJECTIVE: We examined the association between sweet-beverage consumption (including total, sugar-sweetened, and artificially sweetened soft drink and juice and nectar consumption) and pancreatic cancer risk.
DESIGN: The study was conducted within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition cohort. A total of 477,199 participants (70.2% women) with a mean age of 51 y at baseline were included, and 865 exocrine pancreatic cancers were diagnosed after a median follow-up of 11.60 y (IQR: 10.10-12.60 y). Sweet-beverage consumption was assessed with the use of validated dietary questionnaires at baseline. HRs and 95% CIs were obtained with the use of multivariable Cox regression models that were stratified by age, sex, and center and adjusted for educational level, physical activity, smoking status, and alcohol consumption. Associations with total soft-drink consumption were adjusted for juice and nectar consumption and vice versa.
RESULTS: Total soft-drink consumption (HR per 100 g/d: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.99, 1.07), sugar-sweetened soft-drink consumption (HR per 100 g/d: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.97, 1.08), and artificially sweetened soft-drink consumption (HR per 100 g/d: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.98, 1.10) were not associated with pancreatic cancer risk. Juice and nectar consumption was inversely associated with pancreatic cancer risk (HR per 100 g/d: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.84, 0.99); this association remained statistically significant after adjustment for body size, type 2 diabetes, and energy intake.
CONCLUSIONS: Soft-drink consumption does not seem to be associated with pancreatic cancer risk. Juice and nectar consumption might be associated with a modest decreased pancreatic cancer risk. Additional studies with specific information on juice and nectar subtypes are warranted to clarify these results.
METHODS: This study was conducted within the European Prospective Investigation into Nutrition and Cancer cohort, comprising male and female participants from 10 European countries. Between 1992 and 2000, there were 477,312 participants without cancer who completed a dietary questionnaire and were followed up to determine pancreatic cancer incidence. Coffee and tea intake was calibrated with a 24-hour dietary recall. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were computed using multivariable Cox regression.
RESULTS: During a mean follow-up period of 11.6 y, 865 first incidences of pancreatic cancers were reported. When divided into fourths, neither total intake of coffee (HR, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-1.27; high vs low intake), decaffeinated coffee (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.76-1.63; high vs low intake), nor tea were associated with risk of pancreatic cancer (HR, 1.22, 95% CI, 0.95-1.56; high vs low intake). Moderately low intake of caffeinated coffee was associated with an increased risk of pancreatic cancer (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.02-1.74), compared with low intake. However, no graded dose response was observed, and the association attenuated after restriction to histologically confirmed pancreatic cancers.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on an analysis of data from the European Prospective Investigation into Nutrition and Cancer cohort, total coffee, decaffeinated coffee, and tea consumption are not related to the risk of pancreatic cancer.
METHODS: A total of 335,060 women participating in the European Prospective Investigation into Nutrition and Cancer (EPIC) Study, completed a dietary questionnaire from 1992 to 2000, and were followed-up until 2010 for incidence of breast cancer. Hazard ratios (HR) of breast cancer by country-specific, as well as cohort-wide categories of beverage intake were estimated.
RESULTS: During an average follow-up of 11 years, 1064 premenopausal, and 9134 postmenopausal breast cancers were diagnosed. Caffeinated coffee intake was associated with lower risk of postmenopausal breast cancer: adjusted HR=0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.82 to 0.98, for high versus low consumption; Ptrend=0.029. While there was no significant effect modification by hormone receptor status (P=0.711), linear trend for lower risk of breast cancer with increasing caffeinated coffee intake was clearest for estrogen and progesterone receptor negative (ER-PR-), postmenopausal breast cancer (P=0.008). For every 100 ml increase in caffeinated coffee intake, the risk of ER-PR- breast cancer was lower by 4% (adjusted HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.93 to 1.00). Non-consumers of decaffeinated coffee had lower risk of postmenopausal breast cancer (adjusted HR=0.89; 95% CI: 0.80 to 0.99) compared to low consumers, without evidence of dose-response relationship (Ptrend=0.128). Exclusive decaffeinated coffee consumption was not related to postmenopausal breast cancer risk, compared to any decaffeinated-low caffeinated intake (adjusted HR=0.97; 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.14), or to no intake of any coffee (HR: 0.96; 95%: 0.82 to 1.14). Caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee were not associated with premenopausal breast cancer. Tea intake was neither associated with pre- nor post-menopausal breast cancer.
CONCLUSIONS: Higher caffeinated coffee intake may be associated with lower risk of postmenopausal breast cancer. Decaffeinated coffee intake does not seem to be associated with breast cancer.