METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional survey was conducted at two outpatient chemotherapy centers. A total of 546 patients completed the questionnaires on CAM use. QOL was evaluated based on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) core quality of life (QLQ-C30) and breast cancer-specific quality of life (QLQ-BR23) questionnaires.
RESULTS: A total of 70.7% of patients were identified as CAM users. There was no significant difference in global health status scores and in all five subscales of the QLQ C30 functional scales between CAM users and non-CAM users. On the QLQ-C30 symptom scales, CAM users (44.96±3.89) had significantly (p = 0.01) higher mean scores for financial difficulties than non-CAM users (36.29±4.81). On the QLQ-BR23 functional scales, CAM users reported significantly higher mean scores for sexual enjoyment (6.01±12.84 vs. 4.64±12.76, p = 0.04) than non-CAM users. On the QLQ-BR23 symptom scales, CAM users reported higher systemic therapy side effects (41.34±2.01 vs. 37.22±2.48, p = 0.04) and breast symptoms (15.76±2.13 vs. 11.08±2.62, p = 0.02) than non-CAM users. Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that the use of CAM modality was not significantly associated with higher global health status scores (p = 0.71).
CONCLUSION: While the findings indicated that there was no significant difference between users and non-users of CAM in terms of QOL, CAM may be used by health professionals as a surrogate to monitor patients with higher systemic therapy side effects and breast symptoms. Furthermore, given that CAM users reported higher financial burdens (which may have contributed to increased distress), patients should be encouraged to discuss the potential benefits and/or disadvantages of using CAM with their healthcare providers.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 450 women newly diagnosed with Stage 1 to 3 invasive breast cancer in a single centre from July 2013 to Dec 2014 were included in this study. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the association between Ki-67 (positive defined as 14% and above) and age, ethnicity, grade, mitotic index, ER, PR, HER2, lymph node status and size. All analyses were performed using SPSS Version 22.
RESULTS: In univariable analysis, Ki -67 index was associated with younger age, higher grade, ER and PR negativity, HER2 positivity, high mitotic index and positive lymph nodes. However on multivariable analysis only tumour size, grade, PR and HER2 remained significant. Out of 102 stage 1 patients who had ER positive/PR positive/HER2 negative tumours and non-grade 3, only 5 (4.9%) had a positive Ki-67 index and may have been offered chemotherapy. However, it is interesting to note that none of these patients received chemotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS: Information on Ki67 would have potentially changed management in an insignificant proportion of patients with stage 1 breast cancer.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the quality of life (QOL) scores among breast cancer patients at a Malaysian public hospital.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study of breast cancer patients was conducted between March to June 2013. QOL scores were determined using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) and its breast cancer supplementary measure (QLQ-BR23). Both the QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 assess items from functional and symptom scales. The QLQ-C30 in addition also measures the Global Health Status (GHS). Systematic random sampling was used to recruit patients.
RESULTS: 223 breast cancer patients were recruited with a response rate of 92.1%. The mean age of the patients was 52.4 years (95% CI = 51.0, 53.7, SD=10.3). Majority of respondents are Malays (60.5%), followed by Chinese (19.3%), Indians (18.4%), and others (1.8%). More than 50% of respondents are at stage III and stage IV of malignancy. The mean Global Health Status was 65.7 (SD = 21.4). From the QLQ-C30, the mean score in the functioning scale was highest for 'cognitive functioning' (84.1, SD=18.0), while the mean score in the symptom scale was highest for 'financial difficulties' (40.1, SD=31.6). From the QLQ-BR23, the mean score for functioning scale was highest for 'body image' (80.0, SD=24.6) while the mean score in the symptom scale was highest for 'upset by hair loss' (36.2, SD=29.4). Two significant predictors for Global Health Status were age and employment. The predictors explained 10.6% of the variation of global health status (R2=0.106).
CONCLUSIONS: Age and employment were found to be significant predictors for Global Health Status (GHS). The Quality of Life among breast cancer patients reflected by the GHS improves as age and employment increases.