METHODS: Online focus group discussions were conducted among Malaysian parents to gather information about the content, layout and presentation of oral health information parents sought for the provision of oral health care for their children. Video recordings were transcribed verbatim and thematic analysis was performed using an inductive approach.
RESULTS: In total, 24 parents participated in the discussions and 4 main themes were uncovered. The first theme was perceived information needs related to dental caries, oral health care and the importance of deciduous teeth. The second theme was parents' preferred information resources which were social media, dentists, mobile phone applications and medical personnel. Thirdly, information delivery format and specific characteristics were recommended. The final theme was challenges and barriers faced in maintaining oral health due to parental constraints, child behaviour and external factors.
CONCLUSION: Parents' profound feedback and experiential standpoint stipulate the need for the development and delivery of a comprehensible and visually engaging oral health education module by healthcare professionals via social media to enable access to evidence-based information consistently.
METHODS: Tissues were collected from 80 patients with clinically detected prostate cancer and treated with radical prostatectomy. Cases were tested for ERG by immunohistochemistry using the mouse monoclonal antibody EP111. All blocks on 48 cases were tested in order to determine the extent of heterogeneity of ERG expression within individual cases. ERG expression was analysed in relation to patient age, ethnicity and tumour stage and grade.
RESULTS: Forty-six percent of cases were ERG positive. There was no significant association between ERG and tumour grade or stage. Sixty-nine percent of Indian patients had ERG positive tumours; this was significantly higher (p=0.031) than for Chinese (40%) and Malay (44%) patients. Heterogeneity of ERG expression, in which both positive and negative clones were present, was seen in 35% of evaluated cases. Evaluation by tumour foci showed younger patients had more ERG positive tumour foci than older patients (p=0.01). Indian patients were more likely to have the majority of tumour foci with ERG staining positively, compared to either Chinese or Malay patients (P <0.01).
CONCLUSION: In this study, tumour expression of ERG was more likely to occur in patients of Indian ethnicity.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of men aged above 40 years with no history of prostate cancer, prostate surgery, or 5α-reductase inhibitor treatment. Serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and total PV were measured in each subject. Potential sociodemographic and clinical variables including age, weight, comorbidities, and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) were collected. Of 1034 subjects, 837 were used in building the PV calculator using regression analysis. The remaining 1/5 (n = 197) was used for model validation.
RESULTS: There were 1034 multiethnic Asian men (Chinese 52.9%, Malay 35.4%, and Indian 11.7%) with mean age of 60 ± 7.6 years. Average PV was 29.4 ± 13.0 mL while the overall mean of PSA was 1.7 ± 1.7 ng/mL. We identified age, IPSS, weight, and PSA (all P
METHODS: Six key sections were chosen: (1) high-risk localized and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) oligometastatic prostate cancer, (3) castration-naïve prostate cancer, (4) castrate resistant prostate cancer, (5) use of osteoclast-targeted therapy and (6) global access to prostate cancer drugs. There were 101 consensus questions, consisting of 91 questions from APCCC 2017 and 10 new questions from MyAPCCC 2018, selected and modified by the steering committee; of which, 23 questions were assessed in both ideal world and real-world settings. A panel of 22 experts, comprising of 11 urologists and 11 oncologists, voted on 101 predefined questions anonymously. Final voting results were compared with the APCCC 2017 outcomes.
RESULTS: Most voting results from the MyAPCCC 2018 were consistent with the APCCC 2017 outcomes. No consensus was achieved for controversial topics with little level I evidence, such as management of oligometastatic disease. No consensus was reached on using high-cost drugs in castration-naïve or castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer in real-world settings. All panellists recommended using generic drugs when available.
CONCLUSIONS: The MyAPCCC 2018 voting results reflect the management of advanced prostate cancer in a middle-income country in a real-world setting. These results may serve as a guide for local clinical practices and highlight the financial challenges in modern healthcare.