METHODS: This cross-sectional observational study included 465 adult outpatients prescribed analgesics for cancer pain for 1 month or longer at 22 sites in Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. Data on analgesic prescription and cancer characteristics were extracted from medical records. Pain intensity, sleep disturbance, and quality of life measures were recorded via questionnaires.
RESULTS: Most patients (84.4%) had stage III or IV cancer. A total of 419 patients (90.7%) were prescribed opioids; of these, 42.2% received only weak opioids, whereas 57.8% received at least one strong opioid. The mean worst pain intensity during the past 24 hours was 4.76 (standard deviation [SD], 2.47) on a scale of 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain); the mean current pain intensity was 4.10 (SD, 2.61). More than half of patients (54.8%) reported sleep disturbance caused by pain in the past 7 days. The majority of patients reported problems with pain/discomfort (82.3%), usual activities (65.8%), mobility (58.2%), and anxiety/depression (56.3%). The median daily dose prescribed in oral morphine equivalents was 30 mg for both morphine and tramadol.
CONCLUSION: Despite unrelieved pain, sleep disturbance, and issues with quality of life, a notable proportion of patients were prescribed only weak opioids, and opioid doses prescribed were generally low. Efforts focused on encouragement of prescriptions with analgesic strength and/or doses proportional to the pain management needs of patients are vital to improve the status of cancer pain management in the region.
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 was a multicenter retrospective-cohort study. We collected HGD and T1 lesions of ≤ 10 mm resected by CSP among 15 520 patients receiving CSP from 2014 to 2019 at nine related institutions, and we extracted only cases receiving definite follow-up colonoscopy after CSP of HGD and T1 lesions. We analyzed these tumor's characteristics and therapeutic results such as R0 resection and local recurrence and risk factors of recurrence.
RESULTS: We collected 103 patients (0.63%) and extracted 80 lesions in 74 patients receiving follow-up colonoscopy for CSP scar. Mean age was 68.4 ± 12.0, and male rate was 68.9% (51/80). The mean tumor size (mm) was 6.6 ± 2.5, and the rate of polypoid morphology and rectum location was 77.5% and 25.0%. The rate of magnified observation was 53.8%. The rates of en bloc resection and R0 resection were 92.5% and 37.5%. The local recurrence rate was 6.3% (5/80, median follow-up period: 24.0 months). The recurrence developed within 3 months after CSP for four out of five recurrent cases. Comparing five recurrent lesions to 75 non-recurrent lesions, a positive horizontal margin was a significant risk factor (60.0% vs 10.7%, P
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the role of S100A4 expression as an important component of the epithelial mesenchymal transition (EMT) program in oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC).
MATERIAL AND METHODS: S100A4 protein expression was assessed semi-quantitatively by immunohistochemistry in 47 histologically confirmed cases of oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) and 10 normal oral mucosal biopsies. The association between the S100A4 overexpression and the aggressive features of OSCC were analyzed by X2 test.
RESULTS: Moderate to strong cytoplasmic expression of S100A4 was observed in 30 out of 47 specimens of OSCC (64%). Overexpression of S100A4 was significantly associated with the clinical stage, lymph node involvement, metastases, pattern of invasion and recurrence (p<0.05).
CONCLUSION: S100A4 expression represents an important biomarker of prognostic significance that may be used to identify a subset of patients at high risk of invasion and metast.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the global distribution of breast cancer stage by country, age group, calendar period, and socioeconomic status using population-based data.
DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of MEDLINE and Web of Science databases and registry websites and gray literature was conducted for articles or reports published between January 1, 2000, and June 20, 2022.
STUDY SELECTION: Reports on stage at diagnosis for individuals with primary breast cancer (C50) from a population-based cancer registry were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Study characteristics and results of eligible studies were independently extracted by 2 pairs of reviewers (J.D.B.F., A.D.A., A.M., R.S., and F.G.). Stage-specific proportions were extracted and cancer registry data quality and risk of bias were assessed. National pooled estimates were calculated for subnational or annual data sets using a hierarchical rule of the most relevant and high-quality data to avoid duplicates.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The proportion of women with breast cancer by (TNM Classification of Malignant Tumors or the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program [SEER]) stage group.
RESULTS: Data were available for 2.4 million women with breast cancer from 81 countries. Globally, the proportion of cases with distant metastatic breast cancer at diagnosis was high in sub-Saharan Africa, ranging from 5.6% to 30.6% and low in North America ranging from 0.0% to 6.0%. The proportion of patients diagnosed with distant metastatic disease decreased over the past 2 decades from around 3.8% to 35.8% (early 2000s) to 3.2% to 11.6% (2015 onwards), yet stabilization or slight increases were also observed. Older age and lower socioeconomic status had the largest proportion of cases diagnosed with distant metastatic stage ranging from 2.0% to 15.7% among the younger to 4.1% to 33.9% among the oldest age group, and from 1.7% to 8.3% in the least disadvantaged groups to 2.8% to 11.4% in the most disadvantaged groups.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Effective policy and interventions have resulted in decreased proportions of women diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer at diagnosis in high-income countries, yet inequality persists, which needs to be addressed through increased awareness of breast cancer symptoms and early detection. Improving global coverage and quality of population-based cancer registries, including the collection of standardized stage data, is key to monitoring progress.
Objective: To determine the proportion of adults treated for localized melanoma who prefer the standard scheduled visit frequency (as per Australian guideline recommendations) or fewer scheduled visits (adapted from the Melanoma Follow-up [MELFO] study of reduced follow-up).
Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study used a telephone interview for surveillance following excision of localized melanoma at an Australian specialist center. We invited a random sample of 400 patients who had completed treatment for localized melanoma in 2014 to participate. They were asked about their preferences for scheduled follow-up, and experience of follow-up in the past 12 months. Those with a recurrent or new primary melanoma diagnosed by the time of interview (0.8-1.7 years since first diagnosis) were asked about how it was first detected and treated. SSE practices were also assessed.
Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion preferring standard vs fewer scheduled clinic visits, median delay between detection and treatment of recurrent or new primary melanoma, and SSE practices.
Results: Of the 262 people who agreed to be interviewed, the mean (SD) age was 64.3 (14.3) years, and 93 (36%) were women. Among the 230 people who did not have a recurrent or new primary melanoma, 149 vs 81 preferred the standard vs fewer scheduled clinic visits option (70% vs 30% after adjusting for sampling frame). Factors independently associated with preferring fewer visits were a higher disease stage, melanoma on a limb, living with others, not having private health insurance, and seeing a specialist for another chronic condition. The median delay between first detection and treatment of recurrent or new primary melanoma was 7 and 3 weeks, respectively. Only 8% missed a scheduled visit, while 40% did not perform SSE or did so at greater than 3-month intervals.
Conclusions and Relevance: Some patients with melanoma may prefer fewer scheduled visits, if they are supported to do SSE and there is rapid clinical review of anything causing concern (patient-led surveillance).