METHODS: Using online surveys, availability of specialty manpower and MDTBs among PSTUs was first determined. From the subset of PSTUs with MDTBs, one pediatric surgeon and one pediatric oncologist from each center were queried using 5-point Likert scale questions adapted from published questionnaires.
RESULTS: In 37 (80.4%) of 46 identified PSTUs, availability of pediatric-trained specialists was as follows: oncologists, 94.6%; surgeons, 91.9%; radiologists, 54.1%; pathologists, 40.5%; radiation oncologists, 29.7%; nuclear medicine physicians, 13.5%; and nurses, 81.1%. Availability of pediatric-trained surgeons, radiologists, and pathologists was significantly associated with the existence of MDTBs (P = .037, .005, and .022, respectively). Among 43 (89.6%) of 48 respondents from 24 PSTUs with MDTBs, 90.5% of oncologists reported > 50% oncology-dedicated workload versus 22.7% of surgeons. Views on benefits and barriers did not significantly differ between oncologists and surgeons. The majority agreed that MDTBs helped to improve accuracy of treatment recommendations and team competence. Complex cases, insufficient radiology and pathology preparation, and need for supplementary investigations were the top barriers.
CONCLUSION: This first known profile of pediatric solid tumor care in Southeast Asia found that availability of pediatric-trained subspecialists was a significant prerequisite for pediatric MDTBs in this region. Most PSTUs lacked pediatric-trained pathologists and radiologists. Correspondingly, gaps in radiographic and pathologic diagnoses were the most common limitations for MDTBs. Greater emphasis on holistic multidisciplinary subspecialty development is needed to advance pediatric solid tumor care in Southeast Asia.
METHODS: We surveyed one key stakeholder from each of 27 countries with expertise in survivorship care on questions including the components/structure of follow-up care, delivery of treatment summaries and survivorship care plans, and involvement of primary care in survivorship. Descriptive analyses were performed to characterize results across countries and variations between the WHO income categories (low, middle, high). We also performed a qualitative content analysis of narratives related to survivorship care challenges to identify major themes.
RESULTS: Seven low- or /lower-middle-income countries (LIC/LMIC), seven upper-middle-income countries (UMIC), and 13 high-income countries (HICs) were included in this study. Results indicate that 44.4% of countries with a National Cancer Control Plan currently address survivorship care. Additional findings indicate that HICs use guidelines more often than those in LICs/LMICs and UMICs. There was great variation among countries regardless of income level. Common challenges include issues with workforce, communication and care coordination, distance/transportation issues, psychosocial support, and lack of focus on follow-up care.
CONCLUSION: This information can guide researchers, providers, and policy makers in efforts to improve the quality of survivorship care on a national and global basis. As the number of cancer survivors increases globally, countries will need to prioritize their long-term needs. Future efforts should focus on efforts to bridge oncology and primary care, building international partnerships, and implementation of guidelines.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted at five government-run health clinics in the state of Selangor. Adults with an average risk of colorectal cancer (age > 50 years, asymptomatic, and no family history of colorectal cancer) were recruited using systematic random sampling. An interviewer-administered questionnaire adapted from the Cancer Awareness Measure and Health Belief Model was used.
RESULTS: The median age of participants was 61 years (interquartile range, 56 to 66). Almost 60% of participants indicated their willingness to be screened. However, only 7.5% had undergone iFOBT. Good knowledge of risk factors of colorectal cancer, perceived susceptibility to the disease, and the doctor's recommendation were associated with increased willingness to be screened: adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 1.66 (95% CI, 1.12 to 2.46); aOR, 1.70 (95% CI, 1.08 to 2.70); and aOR, 5.76 (95% CI, 2.13 to 15.57), respectively. Nevertheless, being elderly (aOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.99) and high negative perception toward the testing method (iFOBT) (aOR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.30) were independently associated with lower willingness to be screened. Multivariable analysis within the average-risk individuals who were willing to be screened for colorectal cancer showed that the doctor's recommendations remained as an important cue for positive action, whereas negative perception toward the test was a significant barrier to the actual uptake of iFOBT.
CONCLUSION: The present findings must be factored in when tailoring colorectal cancer screening promotion activities in multiethnic, middle-income settings.
METHODS: We first reviewed the literature on the major types, severity, prevalence, and duration of suffering associated with cervical cancer. We then conducted a modified Delphi process with experts in cervical cancer care to supplement the literature. For each type of suffering, we distinguished between decedents (those who die from cervical cancer in a given year) and nondecedents (those who have cervical cancer in a given year but do not die). By applying the suffering prevalence and duration estimates to the number of decedents, nondecedents, and family caregivers in 2017, we were able to estimate their palliative care needs and the intensity of palliative care needed to respond adequately to this suffering.
RESULTS: There is a high prevalence among decedents of moderate or severe pain (84%), vaginal discharge (66%), vaginal bleeding (61%), and loss of faith (31%). Among both decedents and nondecedents, there is a high prevalence of clinically significant anxiety (63% and 50%, respectively), depressed mood (52% and 38%, respectively), and sexual dysfunction (87% and 83%, respectively). Moderate or severe financial distress is prevalent among decedents, nondecedents, and family caregivers (84%, 74%, and 66%, respectively). More than 40% of decedents and nondecedents are abandoned by their intimate partners. Most patients experience some combination of moderate or severe physical, psychological, social, and spiritual suffering. In total, 258,649 decedents and 2,558,857 nondecedents needed palliative care in 2017, approximately 85% of whom were in low- and middle-income countries where palliative care is rarely accessible.
CONCLUSION: Among women with advanced cervical cancer, suffering is highly prevalent and often severe and multifaceted.
METHODS: The collaboration was initiated with the first ASCO Palliative Care e-course, Train the Trainer program, International Development and Education Award-Palliative Care and translation of ASCO Palliative Care Interdisciplinary Curriculum resources.
RESULTS: This collaboration has resulted in the change of practice of palliative care among the oncology team of Sarawak General Hospital.
CONCLUSION: It encourages more timely palliative care referrals to ensure that patients with complex physical, psychosocial, and spiritual needs have the necessary input and support from the palliative care team throughout the course of patients' illnesses.
METHODS: Data of 3,100 Malaysian women with nonmetastatic breast cancer diagnosed between 2010 and 2017 were analyzed. Adherence to the Malaysian Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Breast Cancer second Edition was measured. Outcomes comprised overall survival and event-free survival.
RESULTS: Guideline adherence for chemotherapy, radiotherapy, hormonal therapy, and targeted therapy were 61.7%, 79.2%, 85.1%, and 26.2%, respectively. Older age was generally associated with lower adherence to guidelines. Compared with patients who were treated according to treatment guidelines, overall survival and event-free survival were substantially lower in patients who were not treated accordingly; hazard ratios for all-cause mortality were 1.69 (95% CI, 1.29 to 2.22), 2.59 (95% CI, 1.76 to 3.81), 3.08 (95% CI, 1.94 to 4.88), and 4.48 (95% CI, 1.98 to 10.13) for chemotherapy, radiotherapy, hormone therapy, and targeted therapy, respectively. Study inferences remain unchanged following sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSION: Our study findings appear to suggest that adherence to treatment guidelines that have been adapted for resource-limited settings may still provide effective guidance in improving breast cancer outcomes.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at six tertiary centers in Malaysia. All women with newly diagnosed breast cancer were interviewed, and a medical records review was conducted using a structured questionnaire. The BCC timeliness framework showed that the total time between a woman discovering their first breast changes and the date of initial treatment was divided into three distinct intervals: presentation interval, diagnostic interval, and treatment interval. Four diagnosis subintervals, referral, biopsy, report, and diagnosis resolution intervals, were also looked into.
RESULTS: The BCC timeliness framework was used to capture important time points. The median total time, presentation interval, diagnostic interval, and treatment interval were 4.9 months (range, 1 month to 10 years), 2.4 months (range, 7 days to 10 years), 26 days (range, 4 days to 9.3 months), and 21 days (range, 1 day to 7.2 months), respectively. Meanwhile, the median time for the diagnosis subinterval of referral, biopsy, report, and diagnosis resolution was 8 days (range, 0 day to 8 months), 0 day (range, 0 day to 20 days), 7 days (range, 3 days to 3.5 months), and 4 days (range, 1 day to 1.8 months), respectively.
CONCLUSION: The BCC timeliness framework is based on the current sequenced trajectory of the BCC journey. Clarity in the measurement of timeliness provides a standardized language for monitoring and outcome research. It can serve as a quality indicator for community and hospital-based breast cancer programs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 19-item electronic survey was sent to two research committee members from the 14 representative national radiation oncology organizations (N = 28) that are a part of FARO.
RESULTS: Thirteen of the 14 member organizations (93%) and 20 of 28 members (71.5%) responded to the questionnaire. Only 50% of the members stated that an active research environment existed in their country. Retrospective audits (80%) and observational studies (75%) were the most common type of research conducted in these centers. Lack of time (80%), lack of funding (75%), and limited training in research methodology (40%) were cited as the most common hindrances in conducting research. To promote research initiatives in the collaborative setting, 95% of the members agreed to the creation of site-specific groups, with head and neck (45%) and gynecological cancers (25%) being the most preferred disease sites. Projects focused on advanced external beam radiotherapy implementation (40%), and cost-effectiveness studies (35%) were cited as some of the potential areas for future collaboration. On the basis of the survey results, after result discussion and the FARO officers meeting, an action plan for the research committee has been created.
CONCLUSION: The results from the survey and the initial policy structure may allow facilitation of radiation oncology research in the collaborative setting. Centralization of research activities, funding support, and research-directed training are underway to help foster a successful research environment in the FARO region.
METHODS: Cancer experts in lower-resource health care systems (as defined by the World Bank as low- and middle-income countries; N = 151) were contacted to participate in a modified consensus-seeking Delphi survey, comprising two rounds. In round 1, participants (n = 69) rated predetermined areas of potential research priority (ARPs) for importance and suggested missing ARPs. In round 2, the same participants (n = 49) rated an integrated list of predetermined and suggested ARPs from round 1, then undertook a forced choice priority ranking exercise. Composite voting scores (T-scores) were used to rank the ARPs. Importance ratings were summarized descriptively. Findings were discussed with international patient advocacy organization representatives.
RESULTS: The top ARP was research into strategies adapting guidelines or treatment strategies in line with available resources (particularly systemic therapy) (T = 83). Others included cancer registries (T = 62); prevention (T = 52); end-of-life care (T = 53); and value-based and affordable care (T = 51). The top COVID-19/cancer ARP was strategies to incorporate what has been learned during the pandemic that can be maintained posteriorly (T = 36). Others included treatment schedule interruption (T = 24); cost-effective reduction of COVID-19 morbidity/mortality (T = 19); and pandemic preparedness (T = 18).
CONCLUSION: Areas of strategic priority favored by cancer researchers in RCRs are related to adaptive treatment guidelines; sustainable implementation of cancer registries; prevention strategies; value-based and affordable cancer care; investments in research capacity building; epidemiologic work on local risk factors for cancer; and combatting inequities of prevention and care access.
METHODS: American Society of Clinical Oncology convened a multidisciplinary, multinational Expert Panel to produce recommendations reflecting four resource-tiered settings. A review of existing guidelines, formal consensus-based process, and modified ADAPTE process to adapt existing guidelines was conducted. Other experts participated in formal consensus.
RESULTS: This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous update. Five existing guidelines were identified and reviewed, and adapted recommendations form the evidence base. Cost-effectiveness analyses provided indirect evidence to inform consensus, which resulted in ≥ 75% agreement.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing is recommended in all resource settings; visual inspection with acetic acid may be used in basic settings. Recommended age ranges and frequencies vary by the following setting: maximal: age 25-65 years, every 5 years; enhanced: age 30-65 years, if two consecutive negative tests at 5-year intervals, then every 10 years; limited: age 30-49 years, every 10 years; basic: age 30-49 years, one to three times per lifetime. For basic settings, visual assessment is used to determine treatment eligibility; in other settings, genotyping with cytology or cytology alone is used to determine treatment. For basic settings, treatment is recommended if abnormal triage results are obtained; in other settings, abnormal triage results followed by colposcopy is recommended. For basic settings, treatment options are thermal ablation or loop electrosurgical excision procedure; for other settings, loop electrosurgical excision procedure or ablation is recommended; with a 12-month follow-up in all settings. Women who are HIV-positive should be screened with HPV testing after diagnosis, twice as many times per lifetime as the general population. Screening is recommended at 6 weeks postpartum in basic settings; in other settings, screening is recommended at 6 months. In basic settings without mass screening, infrastructure for HPV testing, diagnosis, and treatment should be developed.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/resource-stratified-guidelines.
METHODS: We established a nurse- and community-navigator-led navigation program in breast clinics of four public hospitals located in Peninsular and East Malaysia and evaluated the impact of navigation on timeliness of diagnosis and treatment.
RESULTS: Patients with breast cancer treated at public hospitals reported facing barriers to accessing care, including having a poor recognition of breast cancer symptoms and low awareness of screening methods, and facing financial and logistics challenges. Compared with patients diagnosed in the previous year, patients receiving navigation experienced timely ultrasound (84.0% v 65.0%; P < .001), biopsy (84.0% v 78.0%; P = .012), communication of news (63.0% v 40.0%; P < .001), surgery (46% v 36%; P = .008), and neoadjuvant therapy (59% v 42%, P = .030). Treatment adherence improved significantly (98.0% v 87.0%, P < .001), and this was consistent across the network of four breast clinics.
CONCLUSION: Patient navigation improves access to timely diagnosis and treatment for women presenting at secondary and tertiary hospitals in Malaysia.