MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective cross-sectional analysis, clinical data, including clinical staging, Computed Tomography (CT) scan findings and histopathological results were collected and analysed in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hospital Ampang, Ministry of Health Malaysia.
RESULTS: A total of 31 patients had surgery for CC from 1st August 2018 till 31st August 2020. Radical hysterectomy was done on 23 of them as primary treatment for early stage cervical cancer. Both pelvic and para-aortic lymph node dissection was done in 6 patients while 17 patients had only pelvic lymph node dissection. All patients had thoracoabdomino- pelvic CT scans done preoperatively. Among the 82.6% patients with no enlarged pelvic lymph nodes on CT scan, all were confirmed by histology to be negative of malignancy. In the remainder 17.4% of patients with enlarged pelvic nodes on CT scan, three quarters had histology positive pelvic nodes for malignancy (p=0.002). Among patients with no enlarged para-aortic lymph nodes on CT scan, 83.3% had histologically negative para-aortic nodes. Among patients with clinical tumour diameter 2- 3.9 cm, 14.3% had positive pelvic nodes while a quarter of patients with clinical tumour diameter ≥ 4cm had histological positive pelvic nodes. None of the patients with tumour diameter < 2cm had positive pelvic nodes (p=0.993). Positive pelvic lymph nodes involvement was present in 37.5% of those with positive lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI). All patients with negative LVSI had no histological positive pelvic nodes (p=0.103). Among patients with tumour invasion involving the inner third of the stroma, 16.7% had histological positive pelvic nodes while 18.2% with outer third stromal invasion had positive nodes (p=0.977). None of the patients had histologically positive para-aortic lymph nodes with negative pelvic lymph nodes. Among patients with clinical stage 1B2, 20% would have been upstaged to stage 3C based on radiological imaging and final histology confirmation.
CONCLUSION: This study shows that in early stage CC, there is a statistically significant correlation between CT scan findings of enlarged pelvic lymph nodes and histological positive pelvic lymph nodes.
METHODS: We developed a four-state partitioned survival model which compared treatment with olaparib versus routine surveillance (RS) from a Malaysian healthcare perspective. Mature overall survival (OS) data from the SOLO-1 study were used and extrapolated using parametric models. Medication costs and healthcare resource usage costs were derived from local inputs and publications. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to explore uncertainties.
RESULTS: In Malaysia, treating patients with olaparib was found to be more costly compared to RS, with an incremental cost of RM149,858 (USD 33,213). Patients treated with olaparib increased life years by 3.05 years and increased quality adjusted life years (QALY) by 2.76 (9.45 years vs 6.40 years; 7.62 vs 4.86 QALY). This translated to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of RM 49,159 (USD10,895) per life year gained and RM54,357 (USD 12,047) per QALY gained, respectively. ICERs were most sensitive to time horizon of treatment, discount rate for outcomes, cost of treatment and health state costs, but was above the RM53,770/QALY threshold.
CONCLUSION: The use of olaparib is currently not a cost-effective strategy compared to routine surveillance based upon the current price in Malaysia for people with ovarian cancer with BRCA mutation, despite the improvement in overall survival.
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.