RESULTS: In each group, there were 12 males (60%) and average age was not significantly different (p = 0.682-0.987). Using Chinese subjects as a reference, in Chinese, Malay, Indian and Caucasian subjects, mean trigone thickness was 13.68, 14.02, 11.60 (p
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey study. Oncology practitioners were recruited from a major cancer center in Singapore and through two regional cancer meetings that took place in Singapore and Malaysia in 2013.
RESULTS: A total of 126 oncology practitioners from various Southeast Asian countries, mostly nurses (58.7 %) and physicians (37.3 %), were recruited. The majority of the respondents agreed that fatigue (78.4 %) and anxiety (69.1 %) were the most common physical and psychosocial problems experienced by BCS. Monitoring for physical and treatment-related adverse effects (80.7 %) and reviewing patients' noncancer medical history (65.3 %) were the most practiced aspects of follow-up care. Compared with the other practitioners, the physicians were more likely to communicate with other healthcare professionals (adjusted OR = 4.24, 95 % CI 1.54 to 11.72; p = 0.005). Most of the respondents also agreed that patient-specific barriers were the main impediments to follow-up care.
CONCLUSION: This study provides insights into the various aspects of breast cancer survivorship care from the perspectives of oncology practitioners and shows that survivorship care is relatively inadequate in Asia. There is a need for new survivorship care models to meet the needs of Asian BCS and to complement the unique healthcare systems of Asia.
METHODS: Using a decision tree model, clinical and economic outcomes associated with olanzapine-containing regimen and standard antiemetic regimen (doublet antiemetic regimen: dexamethasone+first generation 5HT3RA) in most SEA countries except in Singapore (triplet antiemetic regimen: dexamethasone+first generation 5HT3RA + aprepitant) for CINV prevention following HEC were evaluated. This analysis was performed in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore, using societal perspective method with 5-day time horizon. Input parameters were derived from literature, network meta-analysis, government documents, and hospital databases. Outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in USD/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. A series of sensitivity analyses including probabilistic sensitivity analysis were also performed.
RESULTS: Compared to doublet antiemetic regimen, addition of olanzapine resulted in incremental QALY of 0.0022-0.0026 with cost saving of USD 2.98, USD 27.71, and USD 52.20 in Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia, respectively. Compared to triplet antiemetic regimen, switching aprepitant to olanzapine yields additional 0.0005 QALY with cost saving of USD 60.91 in Singapore. The probability of being cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of 1 GDP/capita varies from 14.7 to 85.2% across countries.
CONCLUSION: The use of olanzapine as part of standard antiemetic regimen is cost-effective for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving HEC in multiple SEA countries.