METHODS: Individual semi-structured interviews with 22 people (health professionals, cancer survivors, community volunteers and member from a non-governmental organization) and four focus group discussions (n = 22 participants) with women from a local community were conducted. All participants were purposively sampled and female residents registered with the South East Asia Community Observatory aged ≥40 years were eligible to participate in the focus group discussions. Data were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis.
RESULTS: The thematic analysis illuminated barriers, challenges and opportunities across six domains: (i) personal experiences and barriers to help-seeking as well as financial and travel access barriers; (ii) primary care challenges (related to delivering clinical breast examination and teaching breast-self-examination); (iii) secondary care challenges (related to mammogram services); (iv) disconnection between secondary and primary care breast cancer screening pathways; and (v) opportunities to improve breast cancer early detection relating to community civil service society activities (i.e. awareness raising, support groups, addressing stigma/embarrassment and encouraging husbands to support women) and vi) links between public healthcare personnel and community (i.e. improving breast self-examination education, clinical breast examination provision and subsidised mammograms).
CONCLUSION: The results point to a variety of reasons for low uptake and, therefore, to the complex nature of improving breast cancer screening and early detection. There is a need to adopt a systems approach to address this complexity and to take account of the socio-cultural context of communities in order, in turn, to strengthen cancer control policy and practices in Malaysia.
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.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The questionnaire was distributed in eight major cities in West Malaysia during the World Health Digestive Day (WDHD) campaign. Two thousand four hundred and eight respondents participated in this survey.
RESULTS: Generally, awareness of colorectal cancer was found to be relatively good. Symptoms such as change in bowel habit, blood in the stool, weight loss and abdominal pain were well recognized by 86.6%, 86.9%, 83.4% and 85.6% of the respondents, respectively. However, common risk factors such as positive family history, obesity and old age were acknowledged only by less than 70% of the respondents. Almost 80% of the respondents are willing to take the screening test even without any apparent symptoms. Colonoscopy is the preferred screening method, but only 37.5% were willing to pay from their own pocket to get early colonoscopy.
CONCLUSIONS: Continous cancer education should be promoted with more involvement from healthcare providers in order to make future colorectal cancer screening programs successful.
METHODS: We performed a MEDLINE search via OVID with the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms "Colorectal Neoplasms"[Mesh] and "Malaysia"[Mesh], and PubMed with the key words "colorectal cancer" and "Malaysia" from 1990 to 2015 for studies reporting any clinical, societal, and economical findings associated with colorectal cancer in Malaysia. Incidence and mortality data were retrieved from population-based cancer registries/databases.
RESULTS: In Malaysia, colorectal cancer is the second most common cancer in males and the third most common cancer in females. The economic burden of colorectal cancer is substantial and is likely to increase over time in Malaysia owing to the current trend in colorectal cancer incidence. In Malaysia, most patients with colorectal cancer have been diagnosed at a late stage, with the 5-year relative survival by stage being lower than that in developed Asian countries. Public awareness of the rising incidence of colorectal cancer and the participation rates for colorectal cancer screening are low.
CONCLUSION: The efficiency of different screening approaches must be assessed, and an organized national screening program should be developed in a phased manner. It is essential to maintain a balanced investment in awareness programs targeting general population and primary care providers, focused on increasing the knowledge on symptoms and risk factors of colorectal cancer, awareness on benefits of screening, and promotion of healthy life styles to prevent this important disease.
METHODS: We recruited 2264 individuals from The Malaysian Cohort participants aged 35-65 years who consented to colorectal screening using the iFOBT kit from July 2017 until January 2019.
RESULTS: The response rate and positive iFOBT test rate of this study were 79.6% and 13.1% respectively. Among those with positive results, 125 individuals (52.7%) underwent colonoscopy; CRC was detected in six of them while 45 others (36.0%) had polyps. The overall CRC detection rate was 0.3% while the colorectal neoplasia detection rate (both colorectal cancer and colorectal polyps) was 2.3%. The APCS scoring indicated a significant association with colorectal neoplasia risk, with increasing trend by severity from moderate to high risk (3.46-11.14) compared to low risk. Most of the participants who were positive for iFOBT were those at high risk.
CONCLUSIONS: The awareness of CRC risk and iFOBT screening are important strategies for early detection of CRC. We showed a CRC detection rate of 0.3 % among those who volunteered to have the iFOBT screening.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Women underwent self-sampling followed by gynecologist sampling during screening at two primary health clinics. Pap cytology of cervical specimens was evaluated for specimen adequacy, presence of endocervical cells or transformation zone cells and cytological interpretation for cells abnormalities. Cervical specimens were also extracted and tested for HPV DNA detection. Positive HPV smears underwent gene sequencing and HPV genotyping by referring to the online NCBI gene bank. Results were compared between samplings by Kappa agreement and McNemar test.
RESULTS: For Pap specimen adequacy, KSSD showed 100% agreement with gynecologist sampling but had only 32.3% agreement for presence of endocervical cells. Both sampling showed 100% agreement with only 1 case detected HSIL favouring CIN2 for cytology result. HPV DNA detection showed 86.2%agreement (K=0.64, 95% CI 0.524-0.756, p=0.001) between samplings. KSSD and gynaecologist sampling identified high risk HPV in 17.3% and 23.9% respectively (p= 0.014).
CONCLUSION: The self-sampling using Kato device can serve as a tool in Pap cytology and HPV DNA detection in low resource settings in Malaysia. Self-sampling devices such as KSSD can be used as an alternative technique to gynaecologist sampling for cervical cancer screening among rural populations in Malaysia.
METHODS: Liquid based cervico-vaginal cytology specimens with squamous abnormalities and corresponding histology from 97 women with subsequent colposcopy and biopsy were included. The specimens were then subjected to the dual stain and Roche Cobas 4800 multiplex real time PCR HPV DNA testing. The sensitivity and specificity of the dual stain and HPV testing were calculated using CIN 2+ on histology as a reference standard.
RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of the dual stain in detecting histology proven CIN 2+ was 93.7% and 76.5% while HPV testing was 85.7% and 14.7% respectively. Of the 44 women with ASCUS or LSIL on cytology, the dual stain also reduced the number of unnecessary colposcopy referrals from 27 to 7 when used as a triage marker compared to HPV testing.
CONCLUSION: p16/Ki-67 dual stain was more sensitive and specific than HPV testing in determining the presence of CIN 2+ on histology. It could triage low grade cervico-vaginal specimens more effectively and potentially help women avoid unnecessary colposcopies. Future studies are needed to further evaluate its role in cervical cancer screening programmes.