METHODS: A collaborative partnership comprising researchers from Malaysia and the UK as well as policy makers, public health experts and non-government organisations from Malaysia was formed to design, deliver and evaluate the Be Cancer Alert Campaign. Each awareness-raising campaign will run for five weeks (Colorectal Cancer in April 2018, followed by Breast Cancer in October 2018). Evaluation of the campaigns will take place in Gombak district (Colorectal Cancer) and Petaling district (Breast Cancer) respectively, in the form of a pre-post randomly selected household survey and collection of service utilisation data. Occupants who are aged 40-years and above and are able to answer questions independently will be selected from each household. A sample of 730 with 80% power will detect a change of 6.09% in knowledge that unexplained lump or swelling is a symptom of breast cancer or changes in bowel habits is a symptom of colorectal cancer.
DISCUSSION: Malaysia and most South-East Asian countries have a low middle-income economy, with limited resources for cancer control. Late-staged cancers impose a significant economic burden on patients, households, communities, employers, health systems and governments. Our proposed strategy for the implementation of the culturally sensitive mass media cancer awareness-raising campaign will serve as a blueprint for cancer prevention and control policy in South-East Asian countries where the burden of cancer is increasing and there are high cancer death rates.
METHODS: We developed a decision analytic model to estimate the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) accrued through BRCA mutation testing or routine clinical surveillance (RCS) for a hypothetical cohort of 1000 early-stage breast cancer patients aged 40 years. In the model, patients would decide whether to accept testing and to undertake risk-reducing mastectomy, oophorectomy, tamoxifen, combinations or neither. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) from the health system perspective. A series of sensitivity analyses were performed.
RESULTS: In the base case, testing generated 11.2 QALYs over the lifetime and cost US$4815 per patient whereas RCS generated 11.1 QALYs and cost US$4574 per patient. The ICER of US$2725/QALY was below the cost-effective thresholds. The ICER was sensitive to the discounting of cost, cost of BRCA mutation testing and utility of being risk-free, but the ICERs remained below the thresholds. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at a threshold of US$9500/QALY, 99.9% of simulations favoured BRCA mutation testing over RCS.
CONCLUSIONS: Offering BRCA mutation testing to early-stage breast cancer patients identified using a locally-validated risk-assessment tool may be cost effective compared to RCS in Malaysia.
METHODS: A single-blind randomized controlled trial was carried out among 370 female undergraduate students from January 2011 to April 2012 in two selected public universities in Malaysia. Participants were randomized to either the intervention group or the control group. The educational program was delivered to the intervention group. The outcome measures were assessed at baseline, 6, and 12 months after implementing the health educational program. Chi-square, independent samples t-test and two-way repeated measures ANOVA (GLM) were conducted in the course of the data analyses.
RESULTS: Mean scores of knowledge on breast cancer (p<0.003), knowledge on breast self examination (p<0.001), benefits of BSE (p<0.00), barrier of BSE (0.01) and confidence of BSE practice (p<0.00) in the intervention group had significant differences in comparison with those of the control group 6 and 12 months after the intervention. Also, among those who never practiced BSE at baseline, frequency of BSE practice increased 6 and 12 months after the intervention (p<0.05).
CONCLUSION: The Breast Health Awareness program based on health the belief model had a positive effect on knowledge of breast cancer and breast self-examination and practice of BSE among females in Malaysia.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: The ANZCTR clinical trial registry ( ACTRN12616000831482 ), retrospectively registered on Jun 23, 2016 in ANZCTR.org.au.
METHODS: From October 2011 to June 2015, 1,778 asymptomatic women, aged 40-74 years, underwent subsidised mammographic screening. All patients had a clinical breast examination before mammographic screening, and women with mammographic abnormalities were referred to a surgeon. The cancer detection rate and variables associated with a recommendation for adjunct ultrasonography were determined.
RESULTS: The mean age for screening was 50.8 years and seven cancers (0.39%) were detected. The detection rate was 0.64% in women aged 50 years and above, and 0.12% in women below 50 years old. Adjunct ultrasonography was recommended in 30.7% of women, and was significantly associated with age, menopausal status, mammographic density and radiologist's experience. The main reasons cited for recommendation of an adjunct ultrasound was dense breasts and mammographic abnormalities.
DISCUSSION: The cancer detection rate is similar to population-based screening mammography programmes in high-income Asian countries. Unlike population-based screening programmes in Caucasian populations where the adjunct ultrasonography rate is 2-4%, we report that 3 out of 10 women attending screening mammography were recommended for adjunct ultrasonography. This could be because Asian women attending screening are likely premenopausal and hence have denser breasts. Radiologists who reported more than 360 mammograms were more confident in reporting a mammogram as normal without adjunct ultrasonography compared to those who reported less than 180 mammograms.
CONCLUSION: Our subsidised opportunistic mammographic screening programme is able to provide equivalent cancer detection rates but the high recall for adjunct ultrasonography would make screening less cost-effective.
METHODS: Data from 585 eligible patients who received palliative radiotherapy between January 2012 and December 2014 were analysed. Median overall survival was calculated from the commencement of first fraction of the last course of radiotherapy to date of death or when censored. 30-DM was calculated as the proportion of patients who died within 30 days from treatment start date. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to estimate survival. Chi-square test and logistic regression was used to assess the impact of potential prognostic factors on median survival and 30-DM.
RESULTS: The most common diagnoses were lung and breast cancers and most common irradiated sites were bone and brain. Median survival and 30-DM were 97 days and 22.7% respectively. Primary cancer, age, treatment course, performance status, systemic treatment post radiotherapy and intended radiotherapy treatment completed had an impact on median survival whereas mainly the latter three factors had an impact on 30-DM.
CONCLUSION: Median survival and factors affecting both survival and 30-DM in our study are comparable to others. However, a 30-DM rate of 22.7% is significantly higher compared to the literature. We need to better select patients who will benefit from palliative radiotherapy in our centre.
METHODS: In this cohort study, we interviewed 328 women with histologically confirmed breast cancer at five medical centres in Malaysia. Times were measured from recognition of symptoms to first consultation to diagnosis and to the first definitive treatment. The event was initiation of definitive treatment. Data was analysed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression.
RESULTS: The mean age was 47.9 (standard deviation 9.4) years and 79.9% were ethnic Malays. The median follow-up time was 6.9 months. The median times for first doctor consultation, diagnosis and initiation of treatment were 2 months, 5.5 months and 2.4 weeks, respectively. The percentage of consultation delay more than a month was 66.8%, diagnosis delay more than three months was 73.2% and treatment delay more than one month was 11.6%. Factors associated with not initiating the definitive treatment were pregnancy (adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) 1.75; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.07, 2.88), taking complementary alternative medicine (AHR 1.45; 95% CI: 1.15, 1.83), initial refusal of mastectomy (AHR 3.49; 95% CI: 2.38, 5.13) and undergoing lumpectomy prior to definitive treatment (AHR 1.62; 95% CI: 1.16, 2.28).
CONCLUSIONS: Delays in diagnosis and consultation were more serious than treatment delays. Most respondents would accept treatment immediately after diagnosis. Respondents themselves were responsible for a large proportion of the delays. This study was successful in understanding the process of breast cancer patients' experience, from symptoms recognition to consultation, diagnosis and treatment.
AIMS: This study aimed to translate, adapt and validate the internationally recognised Breast Cancer Awareness Measure (B-CAM) into the Malay language.
METHODS: The original B-CAM (Cancer Research UK) was forward and backward translated and content validation was ascertained. Face validity (n=30), test-retest reliability (n=50) and the internal consistency of the B-CAM-M (M for Malay language) were assessed in a community sample of adults (n=251) in 2018.
RESULTS: The translated B-CAM-M was validated by an expert panel. The Item-Content Validity Index ranged from .83 to 1.00. The results from the survey (n=251) indicated that the B-CAM-M was well received by Malay-speaking women across the main ethnic groups (85 Malay, 84 Chinese and 82 Indian adults). Cronbach alpha scores for the knowledge about breast cancer symptoms (0.83) and the barriers to healthcare seeking items (0.75) were high. Test-retest reliability (separated by 2-week-interval) with 50 randomly selected participants from the community survey produced intra-class correlations ranging from 0.39 to 0.69.
CONCLUSION: The Malay-version, the B-CAM-M, is a culturally acceptable, valid and reliable assessment tool with which to measure breast cancer awareness among Malay-speaking women.
METHODS: Using data from 272,098 women participating in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study, we assessed dietary intake of 92 foods and nutrients estimated by dietary questionnaires. Cox regression was used to quantify the association between each food/nutrient and risk of breast cancer. A false discovery rate (FDR) of 0.05 was used to select the set of foods and nutrients to be replicated in the independent Netherlands Cohort Study (NLCS).
RESULTS: Six foods and nutrients were identified as associated with risk of breast cancer in the EPIC study (10,979 cases). Higher intake of alcohol overall was associated with a higher risk of breast cancer (hazard ratio (HR) for a 1 SD increment in intake = 1.05, 95% CI 1.03-1.07), as was beer/cider intake and wine intake (HRs per 1 SD increment = 1.05, 95% CI 1.03-1.06 and 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.06, respectively), whereas higher intakes of fibre, apple/pear, and carbohydrates were associated with a lower risk of breast cancer (HRs per 1 SD increment = 0.96, 95% CI 0.94-0.98; 0.96, 95% CI 0.94-0.99; and 0.96, 95% CI 0.95-0.98, respectively). When evaluated in the NLCS (2368 cases), estimates for each of these foods and nutrients were similar in magnitude and direction, with the exception of beer/cider intake, which was not associated with risk in the NLCS.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings confirm a positive association of alcohol consumption and suggest an inverse association of dietary fibre and possibly fruit intake with breast cancer risk.