METHODS: A desk review was conducted from August to October in 2018, to examine, review and describe the historical perspective, strategic planning and implementation of the current CRC screening program in Malaysia.
RESULTS: The main policy documents related to CRC screening are the National Strategic Plan for Cancer Control Programme 2016-2020, the Clinical Practice Guideline for Management of Colorectal Carcinoma 2017, and the Implementation Guideline for CRC Screening in Malaysia 2014. Several papers have been published on the epidemiology of CRC in Malaysia. Between 2014 and 2018, 127,957 men and women were screened using immunochemical Faecal Occult Blood Test (iFOBT); 9.3% had positive iFOBT results and were referred for colonoscopy. For those who underwent colonoscopy, CRC detection rate was 4.1% and 13.9% for pre-malignant conditions. Barriers were identified along the continuum of screening process, including patient, provider, and system factors.
CONCLUSION: Although population-level organised screening programmes are preferable to opportunistic screening, the CRC programme in Malaysia was tailored to meet the needs of the population based on available existing resources. A well-mapped budget for the entire screening programme continuum, a strong partnership between stakeholders and an opportunistic screening strategy is crucial to address the rising incidence of CRC.
METHODS: The Mainstreaming Genetic Counselling for Ovarian Cancer Patients (MaGiC) study is a prospective, two-arm observational study comparing oncologist-led and genetics-led counselling. This study included 790 multiethnic patients with ovarian cancer from 23 sites in Malaysia. We compared the impact of different method of delivery of genetic counselling on the uptake of genetic testing and assessed the feasibility, knowledge and satisfaction of patients with ovarian cancer.
RESULTS: Oncologists were satisfied with the mainstreaming experience, with 95% indicating a desire to incorporate testing into their clinical practice. The uptake of genetic testing was similar in the mainstreaming and genetics arm (80% and 79%, respectively). Patient satisfaction was high, whereas decision conflict and psychological impact were low in both arms of the study. Notably, decisional conflict, although lower than threshold, was higher for the mainstreaming group compared with the genetics arm. Overall, 13.5% of patients had a pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2, and there was no difference between psychosocial measures for carriers in both arms.
CONCLUSION: The MaGiC study demonstrates that mainstreaming cancer genetics is feasible in low-resource and middle-resource Asian setting and increased coverage for genetic testing.