METHODS: Participants aged ≥40 years (n = 730) from randomly selected households in Selangor State Malaysia, completed interview-based assessments. Campaign reach was assessed in terms of responses to an adapted questionnaire that was used in evaluations in other countries. The impact of the campaign was assessed in terms of awareness, confidence to detect symptoms and self-efficacy to discuss symptoms with a doctor as captured by the Cancer Awareness Measure (CAM). CAM was administered before-and-after campaign implementation and responses by BCAC recognisers (i.e. participants who recognised one or more of the BCAC television, radio or print advertisements when prompted) and non-recognisers (i.e. participants who did not recognise any of the BCAC advertisements) were compared analytically. Logistic regression analysed comparative differences in cancer awareness by socio-demographic characteristics and recognition of the BCAC materials.
RESULTS: Over 65% of participants (n = 484) recognised the BCAC-CRC. Campaign-recognisers were significantly more likely to be aware of each CRC symptom at follow-up and were more confident about noticing symptoms (46.9% vs 34.9%, p = 0.018) compared to non-recognisers. There was no difference between groups in terms of self-efficacy to see a doctor about symptoms. Improved symptoms awareness at follow-up was lower for Indians compared to Malays (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.53, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.34, 0.83, p = 0.005). Health service use data did not indicate an increase in screening activity during or immediately after the campaign months.
CONCLUSION: Overall, the findings of the evaluation indicated that the culturally adapted, evidence-based mass media intervention improved CRC symptom awareness among the Malaysian population; and that impact is more likely when a campaign operates a differentiated approach that matches modes of communication to the ethnic and social diversity in a population.
METHODS: The review was conducted according to a predefined protocol. Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched in September 2017, and data extraction and rating of methodologic study quality (according to Joanna Briggs Institute rating procedures) were performed independently by reviewers.
RESULTS: Twenty-two studies (reported across 24 papers) met the inclusion criteria. Most studies (n = 21) were conducted in high or upper-middle income countries; targeted breast (n = 11), cervical (n = 7), colorectal (n = 3), or oral (n = 2) cancer; and used small media either alone (n = 15) or in combination with mass media and other components (n = 5). Studies regarding cancer screening uptake were of medium to high quality and mainly reported positive outcomes for cervical cancer and mixed results for breast and colorectal cancer. The methodologic strength of research that investigated change in cancer-related knowledge and the cost effectiveness of interventions, respectively, were weak and inconclusive.
CONCLUSION: Evidence indicated that small media campaigns seemed to be effective in terms of increasing screening uptake in Asia, in particular cervical cancer screening. Because of the limited number of studies in Asia, it was not possible to be certain about the effectiveness of mass media in improving screening uptake and the effectiveness of campaigns in improving cancer-related knowledge.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a scoping review according to the framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley (2005). We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and Google Scholar using a combination of terms such as "colorectal cancer", "screening" and "low-middle-income countries". Studies of CRC screening interventions/programmes conducted in the general adult population in LMICs as well as policy reviews (of interventions in LMICs) and commentaries on challenges and opportunities of delivering CRC screening in LMICs, published in the English language before February 2020 will be included in this review. The title and abstract screen will be conducted by one reviewer and two reviewers will screen full-texts and extract data from included papers, independently, into a data charting template that will include criteria from an adapted template for intervention description and replication checklist and implementation considerations. The presentation of the scoping review will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews guidance.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: There are no ethical concerns. The results will be used to inform colorectal screening interventions in LMICs. We will publish the findings in a peer-reviewed journal and present them at relevant conferences.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The implementation research logic model guided the development of the study and implementation outcome measures were informed by the 'Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance' (RE-AIM) framework. This CRC screening intervention for Malaysia uses home-testing and digital, small media, communication to improve CRC screening uptake. A sample of 780 people aged 50-75 years living in Segamat district, Malaysia, will be selected randomly from the South East Asia Community Observatory (SEACO) database. Participants will receive a screening pack as well as a WhatsApp video of a local doctor to undertake a stool test safely and to send a photo of the test result to a confidential mobile number. SEACO staff will inform participants of their result. Quantitative data about follow-up clinic attendance, subsequent hospital tests and outcomes will be collected. Logistic regression will be used to investigate variables that influence screening completion and we will conduct a budget impact-analysis of the intervention and its implementation. Qualitative data about intervention implementation from the perspective of participants and stakeholders will be analysed thematically.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been granted by Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (MUHREC ID: 29107) and the Medical Review and Ethics Committee (Reference: 21-02045-O7G(2)). Results will be disseminated through publications, conferences and community engagement activities.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: National Medical Research Register Malaysia: 21-02045-O7G(2).
DESIGNS AND PARTICIPANTS: The results from an evidence synthesis and the outcomes from an expert panel discussion were used to shape CHBMS scale content into an assessment of beliefs about CRC screening (CHBMS-CRC). This questionnaire assessment was translated into the official language of Malaysia. An initial study tested the face validity of the new scale or questionnaire with 30 men and women from various ethnic groups. Factorial or structural validity was investigated in a community sample of 954 multiethnic Malaysians.
SETTING: Selangor state, Malaysia.
RESULTS: The new scale was culturally acceptable to the three main ethnic groups in Malaysia and achieved good face validity. Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranged from 0.66 to 0.93, indicating moderate to good internal consistency. Items relating to perceived susceptibility to CRC 'loaded' on Factor 1 (with loadings scoring above 0.90); perceived benefits of CRC screening items loaded on factor 2 and were correlated strongly (loadings ranged between 0.63 and 0.83) and perceived barriers (PBA) to CRC screening (PBA) items loaded on factor 3 (range 0.30-0.72).
CONCLUSION: The newly developed CHBMS-CRC-M fills an important gap by providing a robust scale with which to investigate and assess CRC screening beliefs and contribute to efforts to enhance CRC screening uptake and early detection of CRC in Malaysia and in other Malay-speaking communities in the region.
DESIGN: Before-and after-study with comparator groups.
SETTING: Selangor State, Malaysia.
PARTICIPANTS: Malaysian women aged >40 years (n=676) from randomly selected households.
INTERVENTION: A culturally adapted mass media campaign (TV, radio, print media and social media).
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was BC symptoms awareness, which was assessed with the Breast Cancer Awareness Measure precampaign and postcampaign. Secondary outcomes included campaign reach, self-efficacy to notice BC symptoms and clinical outcomes. Clinical breast examination and mammogram screening data were collected from hospitals and clinics.
RESULTS: Most participants recognised at least one of the campaign materials (65.2%). The odds of seeing the campaign were lowest for Chinese women (adjusted OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.40) compared with Malays and for women aged >70 years (adjusted OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.94) compared with younger women. Participants who recognised the campaign were significantly more likely to have improved awareness postcampaign compared with non-recognisers particularly for key symptoms such as 'a lump or thickening in your breast' (88.9% vs 62.1%) and 'discharge or bleeding from nipple' (79.7% vs 55.3%). Improvement in symptoms awareness scores was not associated with sociodemographic variables.
CONCLUSIONS: Implementation in Malaysia of an evidence-based mass media campaign from the UK that was culturally adapted appeared to lead to improved awareness about some BC symptoms, though various modes of media communication and perhaps other health education approaches may be required to extend the reach to diverse, multiethnic populations and all age groups.
AIM: This paper reviewed and reflected on the challenges and uncertainties that needed to be considered regarding the implementation and delivery of risk-stratified breast cancer screening in Malaysia.
METHODS: Our iterative writing, discussions and reflections revolved around the results of key relevant literature search from the Ministry of Health Malaysia website, PubMed, and Google Scholar, and on feedback from local clinical experts in the field of breast cancer screening practice. The articles related to risk-stratified breast cancer screening, genetic testing, screening guidelines for the Malaysia population, and articles published in English were included in this narrative review.
RESULT: Further infrastructure and workforce capacity building is needed in order to achieve successful wider implementation e.g.; genetic counselling and testing services are limited in Malaysia. Furthermore, there is a need to elicit Malaysian women's views and evaluate their acceptance of risk-stratified breast cancer screening. The primary healthcare setting is an obvious potential avenue to introduce and deliver initial risk assessment and stratification. However, the workload and willingness of Malaysian primary healthcare doctors to practice risk-stratified screening is yet to be explored to have a better understanding on their perspective.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Identifying a valid and appropriate risk model tailored to the population profile and needs of Malaysian women and conducting a pilot project of risk-stratified screening, guided by implementation science would provide lessons and insights for policymakers, health service managers, and public and primary health care professionals. The results of these activities would increase the likelihood that decisions and plans would lead to the successful implementation in Malaysia of a sustainable and effective breast cancer screening strategy that incorporates a patient-sensitive, risk-stratified approach.
OBJECTIVE: To report the first year's screening results for all men at enrollment in the study.
DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We recruited men aged 40-69 yr with germline BRCA1/2 mutations and a control group of men who have tested negative for a pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation known to be present in their families. All men underwent prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing at enrollment, and those men with PSA >3 ng/ml were offered prostate biopsy.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: PSA levels, PCa incidence, and tumour characteristics were evaluated. The Fisher exact test was used to compare the number of PCa cases among groups and the differences among disease types.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We recruited 2481 men (791 BRCA1 carriers, 531 BRCA1 controls; 731 BRCA2 carriers, 428 BRCA2 controls). A total of 199 men (8%) presented with PSA >3.0 ng/ml, 162 biopsies were performed, and 59 PCas were diagnosed (18 BRCA1 carriers, 10 BRCA1 controls; 24 BRCA2 carriers, 7 BRCA2 controls); 66% of the tumours were classified as intermediate- or high-risk disease. The positive predictive value (PPV) for biopsy using a PSA threshold of 3.0 ng/ml in BRCA2 mutation carriers was 48%-double the PPV reported in population screening studies. A significant difference in detecting intermediate- or high-risk disease was observed in BRCA2 carriers. Ninety-five percent of the men were white, thus the results cannot be generalised to all ethnic groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The IMPACT screening network will be useful for targeted PCa screening studies in men with germline genetic risk variants as they are discovered. These preliminary results support the use of targeted PSA screening based on BRCA genotype and show that this screening yields a high proportion of aggressive disease.
PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we demonstrate that germline genetic markers can be used to identify men at higher risk of prostate cancer. Targeting screening at these men resulted in the identification of tumours that were more likely to require treatment.
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.
OBJECTIVE: To report the utility of PSA screening, PrCa incidence, positive predictive value of PSA, biopsy, and tumour characteristics after 3 yr of screening, by BRCA status.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Men aged 40-69 yr with a germline pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutation and male controls testing negative for a familial BRCA1/2 mutation were recruited. Participants underwent PSA screening for 3 yr, and if PSA > 3.0 ng/ml, men were offered prostate biopsy.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: PSA levels, PrCa incidence, and tumour characteristics were evaluated. Statistical analyses included Poisson regression offset by person-year follow-up, chi-square tests for proportion t tests for means, and Kruskal-Wallis for medians.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 3027 patients (2932 unique individuals) were recruited (919 BRCA1 carriers, 709 BRCA1 noncarriers, 902 BRCA2 carriers, and 497 BRCA2 noncarriers). After 3 yr of screening, 527 men had PSA > 3.0 ng/ml, 357 biopsies were performed, and 112 PrCa cases were diagnosed (31 BRCA1 carriers, 19 BRCA1 noncarriers, 47 BRCA2 carriers, and 15 BRCA2 noncarriers). Higher compliance with biopsy was observed in BRCA2 carriers compared with noncarriers (73% vs 60%). Cancer incidence rate per 1000 person years was higher in BRCA2 carriers than in noncarriers (19.4 vs 12.0; p = 0.03); BRCA2 carriers were diagnosed at a younger age (61 vs 64 yr; p = 0.04) and were more likely to have clinically significant disease than BRCA2 noncarriers (77% vs 40%; p = 0.01). No differences in age or tumour characteristics were detected between BRCA1 carriers and BRCA1 noncarriers. The 4 kallikrein marker model discriminated better (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.73) for clinically significant cancer at biopsy than PSA alone (AUC = 0.65).
CONCLUSIONS: After 3 yr of screening, compared with noncarriers, BRCA2 mutation carriers were associated with a higher incidence of PrCa, younger age of diagnosis, and clinically significant tumours. Therefore, systematic PSA screening is indicated for men with a BRCA2 mutation. Further follow-up is required to assess the role of screening in BRCA1 mutation carriers.
PATIENT SUMMARY: We demonstrate that after 3 yr of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, we detect more serious prostate cancers in men with BRCA2 mutations than in those without these mutations. We recommend that male BRCA2 carriers are offered systematic PSA screening.