METHOD: We searched PubMed, Embase, EBSCOhost and ClinicalTrials.gov for the eligible RCTs which compared the efficacy and safety of combined atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel with nab-paclitaxel alone. The outcomes analyzed included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and treatment-related adverse effects (AEs).
RESULTS: A total of six RCTs were included in this MA. For efficacy, although OS was not significantly prolonged with combined atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel (HR 0.90, 95% CI [0.79, 1.01], p=0.08), this combination therapy significantly improved PFS (HR 0.72, 95% CI [0.59, 0.87], p=0.0006) and ORR (RR 1.25, 95% CI [0.79, 1.01] p<0.00001). For safety, any AEs, haematological, gastrointestinal, and liver AEs showed no statistically significant differences between the atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel combination group and nab-paclitaxel alone group. However, serious AEs, high grade, dermatological, pulmonary, endocrine, and neurological AEs were significantly lower with nab-paclitaxel alone compared to atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel combined (p-value range from <0.00001 to 0,02).
CONCLUSION: Atezolizumab combined with nab-paclitaxel was associated with improved outcomes in the treatment of TNBC; however, this combination resulted in more toxicity compared to nab-paclitaxel alone. While nab-paclitaxel alone produced chemotherapy-related AEs, the combination of atezolizumab with nab-paclitaxel produced AEs, especially immune-related AEs such as haematological, pulmonary, endocrine, and neurological AEs.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: This research work of systematic review has been registered on PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42022297952).
METHOD: A historical cohort of 986 premenopausal, and 1123 postmenopausal, parous breast cancer patients diagnosed from 2001 to 2012 in University Malaya Medical Centre were included in the analyses. Time since LCB was categorized into quintiles. Multivariable Cox regression was used to determine whether time since LCB was associated with survival following breast cancer, adjusting for demographic, tumor, and treatment characteristics.
RESULTS: Premenopausal breast cancer patients with the most recent childbirth (LCB quintile 1) were younger, more likely to present with unfavorable prognostic profiles and had the lowest 5-year overall survival (OS) (66.9; 95% CI 60.2-73.6%), compared to women with longer duration since LCB (quintile 2 thru 5). In univariable analysis, time since LCB was inversely associated with risk of mortality and the hazard ratio for LCB quintile 2, 3, 4, and 5 versus quintile 1 were 0.53 (95% CI 0.36-0.77), 0.49 (95% CI 0.33-0.75), 0.61 (95% CI 0.43-0.85), and 0.64 (95% CI 0.44-0.93), respectively; P trend = 0.016. However, this association was attenuated substantially following adjustment for age at diagnosis and other prognostic factors. Similarly, postmenopausal breast cancer patients with the most recent childbirth were also more likely to present with unfavorable disease profiles. Compared to postmenopausal breast cancer patients in LCB quintile 1, patients in quintile 5 had a higher risk of mortality. This association was not significant following multivariable adjustment.
CONCLUSION: Time since LCB is not independently associated with survival in premenopausal or postmenopausal breast cancers. The apparent increase in risks of mortality in premenopausal breast cancer patients with a recent childbirth, and postmenopausal patients with longer duration since LCB, appear to be largely explained by their age at diagnosis.
METHOD: All newly diagnosed breast cancer patients with node-negative and hormone receptor negative tumors measuring≤2cm at the University Malaya Medical Centre (Malaysia) from 1993 to 2013 were included. Mortality of patients with and without adjuvant chemotherapy were compared and adjusted for possible confounders using propensity score.
RESULTS: Of 6732 breast cancer patients, 341 (5.1%) had small (≤2cm), node-negative and hormone receptor negative tumors at diagnosis. Among them, only 214 (62.8%) received adjuvant chemotherapy. Five-year overall survival was 88.1% (95% confidence interval (CI): 82.0%-94.2%) for patients receiving chemotherapy and 89.6% (95% CI: 85.1%-94.1%) for patients without chemotherapy. Chemotherapy was not associated with survival following adjustment for age, ethnicity, tumor size, tumor grade, HER2 status, lympho-vascular invasion, type of surgery and radiotherapy administration. However, chemotherapy was associated with a significant survival advantage (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.35, 95%CI: 0.14-0.91) in a subgroup of women with high-grade tumors.
CONCLUSION: Adjuvant chemotherapy does not appear to be associated with a survival benefit in women with T1N0M0, hormone receptor negative breast cancer except in those with high-grade tumors.
METHODS: Using Singapore Malaysia Hospital-Based Breast Cancer Registry, clinical information was retrieved from 7064 stage I to III breast cancer patients who were diagnosed between 1990 and 2011 and underwent surgery. Predicted and observed probabilities of positive nodes and survival were compared for each subgroup. Calibration was assessed by plotting observed value against predicted value for each decile of the predicted value. Discrimination was evaluated by area under a receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) with 95 % confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS: The median predicted probability of positive lymph nodes is 40.6 % which was lower than the observed 43.6 % (95 % CI, 42.5 %-44.8 %). The calibration plot showed underestimation for most of the groups. The AUC was 0.71 (95 % CI, 0.70-0.72). Cancermath predicted and observed overall survival probabilities were 87.3 % vs 83.4 % at 5 years after diagnosis and 75.3 % vs 70.4 % at 10 years after diagnosis. The difference was smaller for patients from Singapore, patients diagnosed more recently and patients with favorable tumor characteristics. Calibration plot also illustrated overprediction of survival for patients with poor prognosis. The AUC for 5-year and 10-year overall survival was 0.77 (95 % CI: 0.75-0.79) and 0.74 (95 % CI: 0.71-0.76).
CONCLUSIONS: The discrimination and calibration of CancerMath were modest. The results suggest that clinical application of CancerMath should be limited to patients with better prognostic profile.
Methods: Young women (aged less than 50 years) newly diagnosed with stage I or II (T1-2 N0-1 M0) breast cancer in four hospitals in Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong in 1990-2012 were included. Overall survival (OS) was compared for patients treated by BCS and those who had a mastectomy. Propensity score analysis was used to account for differences in demographic, tumour and treatment characteristics between the groups.
Results: Some 63·5 per cent of 3536 women underwent mastectomy. Over a 15-year period, only a modest increase in rates of BCS was observed. Although BCS was significantly associated with favourable prognostic features, OS was not significantly different for BCS and mastectomy; the 5-year OS rate was 94·9 (95 per cent c.i. 93·5 to 96·3) and 92·9 (91·7 to 94·1) per cent respectively. Inferences remained unchanged following propensity score analysis (hazard ratio for BCS versus mastectomy: 0·81, 95 per cent c.i. 0·64 to 1·03).
Conclusion: The prevalence of young women with breast cancer treated by mastectomy remains high in Asian countries. Patients treated with BCS appear to survive as well as those undergoing mastectomy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve focus group discussions (n = 64) were conducted with women with breast cancer from two public and three private hospitals. This study specifically focused on (a) health costs, (b) nonhealth costs, (c) employment and earnings, and (d) financial assistance. Thematic analysis was used.
RESULTS: Financial needs related to cancer treatment and health care varied according to the participant's socioeconomic background and type of medical insurance. Although having medical insurance alleviated cancer treatment-related financial difficulties, limited policy coverage for cancer care and suboptimal reimbursement policies were common complaints. Nonhealth expenditures were also cited as an important source of financial distress; patients from low-income households reported transport and parking costs as troublesome, with some struggling to afford basic necessities, whereas participants from higher-income households mentioned hired help, special food and/or supplements and appliances as expensive needs following cancer. Needy patients had a hard time navigating through the complex system to obtain financial support. Irrespective of socioeconomic status, reductions in household income due to loss of employment and/or earnings were a major source of economic hardship.
CONCLUSION: There are many unmet financial needs following a diagnosis of (breast) cancer even in settings with universal health coverage. Health care professionals may only be able to fulfill these unmet needs through multisectoral collaborations, catalyzed by strong political will.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: As unmet financial needs exist among patients with cancer across all socioeconomic groups, including for patients with medical insurance, financial navigation should be prioritized as an important component of cancer survivorship services, including in the low- and middle-income settings. Apart from assisting survivors to understand the costs of cancer care, navigate the complex system to obtain financial assistance, or file health insurance claims, any planned patient navigation program should also provide support to deal with employment-related challenges and navigate return to work. It is also echoed that costs for essential personal items (e.g., breast prostheses) should be covered by health insurance or subsidized by the government.
METHODS: This historical cohort study included women who underwent mastectomy after diagnosis with stage 0 to stage IIIa breast cancer from 2011 to 2015 in a tertiary hospital. Multivariable regression analyses were used to assess factors associated with immediate breast reconstruction and to measure clinical outcomes.
RESULT: Out of 790 patients with early breast cancer who had undergone mastectomy, only 68 (8.6%) received immediate breast reconstruction. Immediate breast reconstruction was independently associated with younger age at diagnosis, recent calendar years, Chinese ethnicity, higher education level, and invasive ductal carcinomas. Although immediate breast reconstruction was associated with a higher risk of short-term local surgical complications (adjusted odds ratio: 3.58 [95% confidence interval 1.75-7.30]), there were no significant differences in terms of delay in initiation of chemotherapy, 5-year disease-free survival, and 5-year overall survival between both groups in the multivariable analyses.
CONCLUSION: Although associated with short-term surgical complications, immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy does not appear to be associated with delays in initiation of chemotherapy, recurrence, or mortality after breast cancer. These findings are valuable in facilitating shared surgical decision-making, improving access to immediate breast reconstruction, and setting priorities for surgical trainings in middle-income settings.
METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 200 women in Shah Alam, Selangor; Malaysia. The questionnaire contained 27 questions and was comprised of two sections; socio-demographic characteristics and practices, knowledge and barriers of mammography. All the data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 13.0.
RESULTS: Of the 200 Malaysian women who participated in this study, the majority were under the age of 50 years (65.5%), Malay (86%), and married (94.5%). Regarding any family history of cancer in general, the majority of the participants had none (78%). However, some did report a close relative with breast cancer (16.5%). While the majority of them knew about mammography (68%), 15% had had a mammogram once in their life and only 2% had the procedure every two or three years. Univariate analysis showed that age, family history of cancer, family history of breast cancer, regular supplement intake, regular medical check-up and knowledge about mammogram were significantly associated with mammogram practice among the general population (p=0.007, p=0.043, P=0.015, p=0.01, p=0.001, p<0.001; respectively). Multivariate analysis using multiple linear regression test showed that age, regular medical check-up and knowledge about mammography testing were statistically associated with the practice of mammography among the general population in Malaysia (p=0.035, p=0.015 and p<0.001; respectively). Lack of time, lack of knowledge, not knowing where to go for the test and a fear of the test result were the most important barriers (42.5%, 32%, 21%, 20%; respectively).
CONCLUSION: The practice of mammogram screening is low among Malaysian women.
METHODS: We used a grounded theory approach to analyze three focus groups conducted between May and August 2010 in Kuala Lumpur. We used random sampling to recruit the informants (n=21), all of whom had earlier participated in the 4 week self-management program held two years previously.
FINDINGS: The women reported positive experience and growth with the self management program. Self-efficacy appears as an important underlying theme for successful experiences. The lack of proactive plans to provide bereavement support to surviving women was a key negative experience.
CONCLUSION: The intervention successfully brought women together to work in close partnership with health professionals on ways to self manage the medical, emotional and role task as they live indefinitely with breast cancer, a new chronic illness. The beneficial effect from the 4 week intervention was expressed by women even at 2 years after the program. Having successfully developed a tightly knitted group, a major oversight was the lack of professional support on bereavement for grieving members when close friends passed away.