METHODS: The review was conducted according to a predefined protocol. Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched in September 2017, and data extraction and rating of methodologic study quality (according to Joanna Briggs Institute rating procedures) were performed independently by reviewers.
RESULTS: Twenty-two studies (reported across 24 papers) met the inclusion criteria. Most studies (n = 21) were conducted in high or upper-middle income countries; targeted breast (n = 11), cervical (n = 7), colorectal (n = 3), or oral (n = 2) cancer; and used small media either alone (n = 15) or in combination with mass media and other components (n = 5). Studies regarding cancer screening uptake were of medium to high quality and mainly reported positive outcomes for cervical cancer and mixed results for breast and colorectal cancer. The methodologic strength of research that investigated change in cancer-related knowledge and the cost effectiveness of interventions, respectively, were weak and inconclusive.
CONCLUSION: Evidence indicated that small media campaigns seemed to be effective in terms of increasing screening uptake in Asia, in particular cervical cancer screening. Because of the limited number of studies in Asia, it was not possible to be certain about the effectiveness of mass media in improving screening uptake and the effectiveness of campaigns in improving cancer-related knowledge.
METHODS: Fifty-one patients with childhood MB were seen at University Malaya Medical Center. Data from 43 patients were analyzed; eight patients were excluded because their families refused treatment after surgery.
RESULTS: Headache and vomiting were the most common presenting symptoms, and the mean interval between symptom onset and diagnosis was 4 weeks. Fourteen patients presented with metastatic disease. Five-year progression-free survival (± SE) for patients ≥ 3 years old was 41.7% ± 14.2% (95% CI, 21.3% to 81.4%) in the high-risk group and 68.6% ± 18.6% (95% CI, 40.3% to 100%) in the average-risk group, and 5-year overall survival (± SE) in these two groups was 41.7% ± 14.2% (95% CI, 21.3% to 81.4%) and 58.3% ± 18.6% (95% CI, 31.3% to 100%), respectively. Children younger than 3 years old had 5-year progression-free and overall survival rates (± SE) of 47.6% ± 12.1% (95% CI, 28.9% to 78.4%) and 45.6% ± 11.7% (95% CI, 27.6% to 75.5%), respectively. Time to relapse ranged from 4 to 132 months. Most patients who experienced relapse died within 1 year. Febrile neutropenia, hearing loss, and endocrinopathy were the most common treatment-related complications.
CONCLUSION: The survival rate of childhood MB in Malaysia is inferior to that usually reported in the literature. We postulate that the following factors contribute to this difference: lack of a multidisciplinary neuro-oncology team, limited health care facilities, inconsistent risk assessment, insufficient data in the National Cancer Registry and pathology reports, inadequate long-term follow-up, and cultural beliefs leading to treatment abandonment.
METHODS: This cross-sectional observational study included 465 adult outpatients prescribed analgesics for cancer pain for 1 month or longer at 22 sites in Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. Data on analgesic prescription and cancer characteristics were extracted from medical records. Pain intensity, sleep disturbance, and quality of life measures were recorded via questionnaires.
RESULTS: Most patients (84.4%) had stage III or IV cancer. A total of 419 patients (90.7%) were prescribed opioids; of these, 42.2% received only weak opioids, whereas 57.8% received at least one strong opioid. The mean worst pain intensity during the past 24 hours was 4.76 (standard deviation [SD], 2.47) on a scale of 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain); the mean current pain intensity was 4.10 (SD, 2.61). More than half of patients (54.8%) reported sleep disturbance caused by pain in the past 7 days. The majority of patients reported problems with pain/discomfort (82.3%), usual activities (65.8%), mobility (58.2%), and anxiety/depression (56.3%). The median daily dose prescribed in oral morphine equivalents was 30 mg for both morphine and tramadol.
CONCLUSION: Despite unrelieved pain, sleep disturbance, and issues with quality of life, a notable proportion of patients were prescribed only weak opioids, and opioid doses prescribed were generally low. Efforts focused on encouragement of prescriptions with analgesic strength and/or doses proportional to the pain management needs of patients are vital to improve the status of cancer pain management in the region.
METHODS: We established PN in a dedicated breast clinic of a Malaysian state-run hospital. We compared diagnostic and treatment timeliness between navigated patients (n = 135) and patients diagnosed in the prior year (n = 148), and described factors associated with timeliness.
RESULTS: Women with PN received timely mammography compared with patients in the prior year (96.4% v 74.4%; P < .001), biopsy (92.5% v 76.1%; P = .003), and communication of news (80.0% v 58.5%; P < .001). PN reduced treatment default rates (4.4% v 11.5%; P = .048). Among navigated patients, late stage at presentation was independently associated with having emotional and language barriers ( P = .01). Finally, the main reason reported for delay, default, or refusal of treatment was the preference for alternative therapy.
CONCLUSION: PN is feasible for addressing barriers to cancer care when integrated with a state-run breast clinic of an LMIC. Its implementation resulted in improved diagnostic timeliness and reduced treatment default. Wider adoption of PN could be a key element of cancer control in LMICs.
METHODS: ASCO convened a multidisciplinary, multinational Expert Panel that reviewed existing guidelines and conducted a modified ADAPTE process and a formal consensus process with additional experts for one round of formal ratings.
RESULTS: Existing sets of guidelines from 12 guideline developers were identified and reviewed; adapted recommendations from six guidelines form the evidence base and provide evidence to inform the formal consensus process, which resulted in agreement of 75% or more on all recommendations.
RECOMMENDATIONS: For nonmaximal settings, the recommended treatments for colon cancer stages nonobstructing, I-IIA: in basic and limited, open resection; in enhanced, adequately trained surgeons and laparoscopic or minimally invasive surgery, unless contraindicated. Treatments for IIB-IIC: in basic and limited, open en bloc resection following standard oncologic principles, if not possible, transfer to higher-level facility; in emergency, limit to life-saving procedures; in enhanced, laparoscopic en bloc resection, if not possible, then open. Treatments for obstructing, IIB-IIC: in basic, resection and/or diversion; in limited or enhanced, emergency surgical resection. Treatment for IIB-IIC with left-sided: in enhanced, may place colonic stent. Treatment for T4N0/T3N0 high-risk features or stage II high-risk obstructing: in enhanced, may offer adjuvant chemotherapy. Treatment for rectal cancer cT1N0 and cT2n0: in basic, limited, or enhanced, total mesorectal excision principles. Treatment for cT3n0: in basic and limited, total mesorectal excision, if not, diversion. Treatment for high-risk patients who did not receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy: in basic, limited, or enhanced, may offer adjuvant therapy. Treatment for resectable cT3N0 rectal cancer: in enhanced, base neoadjuvant chemotherapy on preoperative factors. For post-treatment surveillance, a combination of medical history, physical examination, carcinoembryonic antigen testing, imaging, and endoscopy is performed. Frequency depends on setting. Maximal setting recommendations are in the guideline. Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/resource-stratified-guidelines .
NOTICE: It is the view of the American Society of Clinical Oncology that health care providers and health care system decision makers should be guided by the recommendations for the highest stratum of resources available. The guidelines are intended to complement but not replace local guidelines.
METHODS: American Society of Clinical Oncology convened a multidisciplinary, multinational panel of medical oncology, surgical oncology, surgery, gastroenterology, health technology assessment, cancer epidemiology, pathology, radiology, radiation oncology, and patient advocacy experts. The Expert Panel reviewed existing guidelines and conducted a modified ADAPTE process and a formal consensus-based process with additional experts (Consensus Ratings Group) for two round(s) of formal ratings.
RESULTS: Existing sets of guidelines from eight guideline developers were identified and reviewed; adapted recommendations form the evidence base. These guidelines, along with cost-effectiveness analyses, provided evidence to inform the formal consensus process, which resulted in agreement of 75% or more.
CONCLUSION: In nonmaximal settings, for people who are asymptomatic, are ages 50 to 75 years, have no family history of colorectal cancer, are at average risk, and are in settings with high incidences of colorectal cancer, the following screening options are recommended: guaiac fecal occult blood test and fecal immunochemical testing (basic), flexible sigmoidoscopy (add option in limited), and colonoscopy (add option in enhanced). Optimal reflex testing strategy for persons with positive screens is as follows: endoscopy; if not available, barium enema (basic or limited). Management of polyps in enhanced is as follows: colonoscopy, polypectomy; if not suitable, then surgical resection. For workup and diagnosis of people with symptoms, physical exam with digital rectal examination, double contrast barium enema (only in basic and limited); colonoscopy; flexible sigmoidoscopy with biopsy (if contraindication to latter) or computed tomography colonography if contraindications to two endoscopies (enhanced only).
METHODS: The American Society of Clinical Oncology convened a multidisciplinary, multinational panel of oncology, obstetrics/gynecology, public health, cancer control, epidemiology/biostatistics, health economics, behavioral/implementation science, and patient advocacy experts. The Expert Panel reviewed existing guidelines and conducted a modified ADAPTE process and a formal consensus-based process with additional experts (consensus ratings group) for one round of formal ratings.
RESULTS: Existing sets of guidelines from five guideline developers were identified and reviewed; adapted recommendations formed the evidence base. Five systematic reviews, along with cost-effectiveness analyses, provided evidence to inform the formal consensus process, which resulted in agreement of ≥ 75%.
RECOMMENDATIONS: In all resource settings, two doses of human papillomavirus vaccine are recommended for girls age 9 to 14 years, with an interval of at least 6 months and possibly up to 12 to 15 months. Individuals with HIV positivity should receive three doses. Maximal and enhanced settings: if girls are age ≥ 15 years and received their first dose before age 15 years, they may complete the series; if no doses were received before age 15 years, three doses should be administered; in both scenarios, vaccination may be through age 26 years. Limited and basic settings: if sufficient resources remain after vaccinating girls age 9 to 14 years, girls who received one dose may receive additional doses between age 15 and 26 years. Maximal, enhanced, and limited settings: if ≥ 50% coverage in the priority female target population, sufficient resources, and cost effectiveness, boys may be vaccinated to prevent other noncervical human papillomavirus-related cancers and diseases. Basic settings: vaccinating boys is not recommended.
It is the view of the American Society of Clinical Oncology that health care providers and health care system decision makers should be guided by the recommendations for the highest stratum of resources available. The guideline is intended to complement but not replace local guidelines.