MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study comprised a retrospective analysis of patients with DLBCL treated at a single centre. The outcome was compared with patients who were treated with R-CHOP like and CHOP like chemotherapy. Patients who were treated with lower dose of rituximab was subanalysed for outcome.
RESULTS: A total of 86 patients who had CHOP-like chemotherapy were included. Only 39 (45%) patients had rituximab and only 12 (29%) patients had the recommended dose. The overall response (OR) and complete response (CR) rates were 88% and 81% respectively. There was no significant difference in OR and CR in patients who had rituximab and those without rituxmab. Those with International Prognostic Index (IPI) score of ≤ 2 had significant higher CR rate, progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The lack of significant improvement in CR and DFS in our patients may be due to an inadequate dose of rituximab.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The clinical characteristics, presenting symptoms and survival of RCC patients (n=151) treated at UMMC from 2003-2012 were analysed. Symptoms evaluated were macrohaematuria, flank pain, palpable abdominal mass, fever, lethargy, loss of weight, anaemia, elevated ALP, hypoalbuminemia and thrombocytosis. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed to determine the prognostic significance of these presenting symptoms. Kaplan Meier and log rank tests were employed for survival analysis.
RESULTS: The 2002 TNM staging was a prognostic factor (p<0.001) but Fuhrman grading was not significantly correlated with survival (p=0.088). At presentation, 76.8% of the patients were symptomatic. Generally, symptomatic tumours had a worse survival prognosis compared to asymptomatic cases (p=0.009; HR 4.74). All symptoms significantly affect disease specific survival except frank haematuria and loin pain on univariate Cox regression analysis. On multivariate analysis adjusted for stage, only clinically palpable abdominal mass remained statistically significant (p=0.027). The mean tumour size of palpable abdominal masses, 9.5±4.3cm, was larger than non palpable masses, 5.3±2.7cm (p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first report which includes survival information of RCC patients from Malaysia. Here the TNM stage and a palpable abdominal mass were independent predictors for survival. Further investigations using a multicentre cohort to analyse mortality and survival rates may aid in improving management of these patients.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with T3-4, N2 M0 breast cancer diagnosed between January 2005 and December 2008 and who received at least one cycle of neoadjuvant chemotherapy were eligible for this study. Thirty-four patients were identified from the Chemotherapy Daycare Records and their medical records were reviewed retrospectively. The neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimen administered was at the discretion of the treating oncologist. Breast tumour size and nodal status was assessed at diagnosis, at each cycle and before surgery.
RESULTS: All 34 patients had invasive ductal cancer. The median age was 52 years (range 27-69). 65% had T4 disease and 76% were clinically lymph node positive at diagnosis. The median size of the breast tumour at presentation was 80 mm (range 42-200 mm). Estrogen and progesterone receptor positivity was seen in less than 40% and HER2 positivity, by immunohistochemistry, in 27%. The majority (85%) of patients had anthracycline based chemotherapy, without taxanes. The overall response rate (clinical CR+PR) was 67.6% and pathological complete responses were apparent in two (5.9%). 17.6% of patients defaulted part of their planned treatment. Recurrent disease was seen in 44.1% and the median time to relapse was 11.3 months. The three year disease free and overall survival rates were 52.5% and 58% respectively.
CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer in a Malaysian setting confers response and pCR rates comparable to published clinical trials. Patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy are at risk of defaulting part of their treatment and therefore their concerns need to be identified proactively and addressed in order to improve outcomes.
METHODS: This retrospective study of Stage III breast cancer patients was conducted over a 5 year period from 1998 to 2002. The survival data were obtained from the National Registry of Births and Deaths with the end-point of the study in April 2006. The Kaplan Meier method was applied for survival analysis. Cox regression analysis by stepwise selection was performed to identify important prognostic factors.
RESULTS: Out of a 155 evaluable patients, 74 (47.7%) had primary surgery, 62 (40%) had neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 10 patients (6.5%) were given Tamoxifen as the primary treatment, while 9 patients (5.8%) defaulted any form of treatment. After neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 9 patients defaulted further treatment, leaving 53 evaluable patients. Out of these 53 evaluable patients, 5 patients (9.4%) had complete pathological response, 5 (9.4%) a complete clinical response, and 26 (49.1%) had partial response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The 5-year survival in the primary surgery group was 56.7 % compared to 44.7% in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group (p<0.01). The important prognostic factors were race, size of tumour, nodal status, estrogen receptor status and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
CONCLUSION: Patients who had primary surgery had better survival than those who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy, which may be due to bias in the selection of patients for neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Out of a total of 155 patients, 25.1% defaulted part of the treatment, or did not receive optimal treatment, emphasizing the importance of psychosocial support and counselling for this group of patients.