Patients and Methods: A cross-sectional study at the Oncology Clinic, Hospital Kuala Lumpur was conducted from March to August 2018. All patients with metastatic and/or unresectable GIST aged ≥18 years old and on at least 3 months of imatinib were included. Adherence to imatinib was assessed using the 10-item validated Medication Compliance Questionnaire, with a score of <100% indicating non-adherence. Non-adherence predictors were determined by multiple logistic regressions. HRQOL was evaluated by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). The difference in the mean HRQOL scores between adherent and non-adherent groups was determined by multivariate analysis of variance.
Results: A total of 89 patients were enrolled, of which 49 (55.1%) were considered non-adherent. The significant predictors of non-adherence were age (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.93; CI 0.89-0.98; P = 0.007), presence of nausea and vomiting (OR 5.63; CI 1.25-25.27; P = 0.024), and presence of comorbidities (OR 4.56; CI 1.44-14.40; P = 0.010). Patients who were in the adherent group showed significantly better score in overall HRQOL, F (15, 73) = 2.09, P < 0.02; Pillai's trace = 0.3, partial eta squared = 0.30.
Conclusion: Non-adherence to long-term treatment with imatinib among patients with GIST should not be underestimated. Significant predictors of non-adherence among this population are younger age, presence of nausea and vomiting, as well as comorbidities. Patients with good adherence portrayed better HRQOL.
METHODS: Using a decision tree model, clinical and economic outcomes associated with olanzapine-containing regimen and standard antiemetic regimen (doublet antiemetic regimen: dexamethasone+first generation 5HT3RA) in most SEA countries except in Singapore (triplet antiemetic regimen: dexamethasone+first generation 5HT3RA + aprepitant) for CINV prevention following HEC were evaluated. This analysis was performed in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore, using societal perspective method with 5-day time horizon. Input parameters were derived from literature, network meta-analysis, government documents, and hospital databases. Outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in USD/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. A series of sensitivity analyses including probabilistic sensitivity analysis were also performed.
RESULTS: Compared to doublet antiemetic regimen, addition of olanzapine resulted in incremental QALY of 0.0022-0.0026 with cost saving of USD 2.98, USD 27.71, and USD 52.20 in Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia, respectively. Compared to triplet antiemetic regimen, switching aprepitant to olanzapine yields additional 0.0005 QALY with cost saving of USD 60.91 in Singapore. The probability of being cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of 1 GDP/capita varies from 14.7 to 85.2% across countries.
CONCLUSION: The use of olanzapine as part of standard antiemetic regimen is cost-effective for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving HEC in multiple SEA countries.
METHODS: Country-specific data from a multinational prospective cohort study, Association of Southeast Asian Nations Costs in Oncology Study, comprising 1,249 cancer survivors were included. Household costs of complementary medicine (healthcare practices or products that are not considered as part of conventional medicine) throughout the first year after cancer diagnosis were measured using cost diaries. Study outcomes comprised (1) shares of household expenditures on complementary medicine from total out-of-pocket costs and health costs that were respectively incurred in relation to cancer, (2) incidence of financial catastrophe (out-of-pocket costs related to cancer ≥ 30% of annual household income), and (3) economic hardship (inability to pay for essential household items or services).
RESULTS: One third of patients reported out-of-pocket household expenditures on complementary medicine in the immediate year after cancer diagnosis, accounting to 20% of the total out-of-pocket costs and 35% of the health costs. Risk of financial catastrophe was higher in households reporting out-of-pocket expenditures on complementary medicine (adjusted odds ratio: 1.39 [95% CI, 1.05 to 1.86]). Corresponding odds ratio within patients from low-income households showed that they were substantially more vulnerable: 2.28 (95% CI, 1.41 to 3.68). Expenditures on complementary medicine were, however, not associated with economic hardship in the immediate year after cancer diagnosis.
CONCLUSION: In settings with universal health coverage, integration of subsidized evidence-based complementary medicine into mainstream cancer care may alleviate catastrophic expenditures. However, this must go hand in hand with interventions to reduce the use of nonevidence-based complementary therapies following cancer.
METHODS: Focus group discussions were conducted with cancer patients who were diagnosed at least 1 year prior to recruitment, and either had paid work, were self-employed, currently unemployed, or currently retired (N = 66).
RESULTS: Three main themes were identified: (1) loss of income: While some participants were entitled for a 1-year cancer-specific sick leave, many other participants recounted having insufficient paid sick leave, forcing them to take prolonged unpaid leave to complete treatment; (2) dealing with side effects of cancer and its treatment: The need for workplace accommodations was highlighted including flexible working hours, lighter workloads, and dedicated rest areas to enable patients to cope better; (3) Discrimination and stigma at workplace: Some participants mentioned being passed over on a promotion, getting demoted, or being forced to resign once their cancer diagnosis was disclosed, highlighting an urgent need to destigmatize cancer in the workplace.
CONCLUSION: In settings with limited employment protection policies, a cancer diagnosis severely impacts the working experiences of patients, leading to financial loss. Urgent interventions and legislative reforms are needed in these settings to address the unmet employment needs of cancer survivors.
IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: This study may facilitate planning of local solutions to fulfill the unmet employment needs following cancer, such as return-to-work navigation services.
PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted involving physicians and newly diagnosed breast cancer patients from three public/teaching hospitals in Malaysia. The Control Preference Scale (CPS) was administered to patients and physicians, and the Krantz Health Opinion Survey (KHOS) was completed by the patients alone. Binary logistic regression was used to determine the association between sociodemographic characteristics, the patients' involvement in treatment decision-making, and patients' preference for behavioral involvement and information related to their disease.
RESULTS: The majority of patients preferred to share decision-making with their physicians (47.5%), while the second largest group preferred being passive (42.6%) and a small number preferred being active (9.8%). However, the physicians perceived that the majority of patients preferred active decision-making (56.9%), followed by those who desired shared decision-making (32.8%), and those who preferred passive decision-making (10.3%). The overall concordance was 26.5% (54 of 204 patient-physician dyads). The median of preference for information score and behavioral involvement score was 4 (interquartile range [IQR] =3-5) and 2 (IQR =2-3), respectively. In univariate analysis, the ethnicity and educational qualification of patients were significantly associated with the patients' preferred role in the process of treatment decision-making and the patients' preference for information seeking (p>0.05). However, only educational qualification (p=0.004) was significantly associated with patients' preference for information seeking in multivariate analysis.
CONCLUSION: Physicians failed to understand patients' perspectives and preferences in treatment decision-making. The concordance between physicians' perception and patients' perception was quite low as the physicians perceived that more than half of the patients were active in treatment decision-making. In actuality, more than half of patients perceived that they shared decision-making with their physicians.
METHODS: Twenty focus group discussions were conducted with 102 Asian patients with cancer from diverse sociodemographic backgrounds. Thematic analysis was performed.
RESULTS: While most participants, especially younger patients with young children, experienced intense emotional distress upon receiving a cancer diagnosis, those with a family history of cancer were relatively calm and resigned. Nonetheless, the prior negative experience with cancer in the family made affected participants with a family history less eager to seek cancer treatment and less hopeful for a cure. Although a majority viewed the presence of family members during the breaking of bad news as important, a minority opted to face it alone to lessen the emotional impact on their family members. Difficulties disclosing the news of a cancer diagnosis to loved ones also emerged as an important need. Sensitive and empathetic patient-physician communication during the breaking of news of a cancer diagnosis was stressed as paramount.
CONCLUSION: A patient-centered communication approach needs to be developed to reduce the emotional distress to patients and their families after the breaking of bad news of a cancer diagnosis. This is expected to positively affect the patients' subsequent coping skills and attitudes toward cancer, which may improve adherence to cancer therapy.
Methods: Data were derived from 20 focus group discussions that were conducted in five public and private Malaysian hospitals, which included 102 adults with breast, cervical, colorectal or prostate cancers. The discussions were segregated by type of healthcare setting and gender. Thematic analysis was performed.
Results: Five major themes related to cancer costs emerged: 1) cancer therapies and imaging services, 2) supportive care, 3) complementary therapies, 4) non-medical costs and 5) loss of household income. Narratives on out-of-pocket medical costs varied not only by type of healthcare setting, clinical factors and socioeconomic backgrounds, but also by private health insurance ownership. Non-health costs (e.g. transportation, food) and loss of income were nonetheless recurring themes. Coping mechanisms that were raised included changing of cancer treatment decisions, continuing work despite ill health and seeking financial assistance from third parties. Unmet needs in coping with financial distress were especially glaring among the women.
Conclusion: The long-term costs of cancer (medications, cancer surveillance, supportive care, complementary medicine) should not be overlooked even in settings where there is access to highly subsidised cancer care. In such settings, patients may also have unmet needs related to non-health costs of cancer and loss of income.
Method: From 2016 to 2017, 2,127 women newly-diagnosed with breast cancer were prospectively recruited. Participants' cardiovascular biomarkers were measured prior to adjuvant treatment decision-making. Clinical data and medical histories were obtained from hospital records. Adjuvant treatment decisions were collated 6-8 months after recruitment. A priori risk of cardiotoxicity was predicted using the Cardiotoxicity Risk Score.
Results: Mean age was 54 years. Eighty-five patients had pre-existing cardiac diseases and 30 had prior stroke. Baseline prevalence of hypertension was 47.8%. Close to 20% had diabetes mellitus, or were obese. Dyslipidaemia was present in 65.3%. The proportion of women presenting with ≥2 modifiable CVD risk factors at initial cancer diagnosis was substantial, irrespective of age. Significant ethnic variations were observed. Multivariable analyses showed that pre-existing CVD was consistently associated with lower administration of adjuvant breast cancer therapies (odds ratio for chemotherapy: 0.32, 95% confidence interval: 0.17-0.58). However, presence of multiple risk factors of CVD did not appear to influence adjuvant treatment decision-making. In this study, 63.6% of patients were predicted to have high risks of developing cardiotoxicities attributed to a high baseline burden of CVD risk factors and anthracycline administration.
Conclusion: While recent guidelines recommend routine assessment of cardiovascular comorbidities in cancer patients prior to initiation of anticancer therapies, this study highlights the prevailing gap in knowledge on how such data may be used to optimise cancer treatment decision-making.
METHOD: In-depth interviews (IDIs) will be conducted with Malaysian healthcare providers and cancer survivors and findings will be analysed thematically. The insights will be used in a subsequent phase to co-design a guideline to maintain the delivery of quality cancer care in Malaysia via a three-round modified Delphi survey with a broad range of cancer stakeholders.
EXPECTED RESULTS: Findings derived from IDIs and existing literature will be included for rating across three rounds by the expert panel. Feedback provided will be refined until consensus on the best practises for cancer care continuity during crises is achieved.
CONCLUSION: The output of the present study is not only expected to ensure the continuity of delivery of high-quality cancer care in Malaysia during the ongoing pandemic but also to be adapted during unforeseen crises in the near future.
POLICY SUMMARY STATEMENT: Collaborative work between policy makers, public health physicians, members of the multidisciplinary oncology team as well as cancer survivors is vital in developing an evidenced- based contingency plan for maintaining access to cancer care.