Association between dietary 3-monochloropropane-1,2-diol esters (3-MCPDE) and renal cancer in Peninsular Malaysia: exposure assessment and matched case-control study.

3-Monochloropropane-1,2-diol esters (3-MCPDE) are food contaminants commonly found in refined vegetable oils and fats, which have possible carcinogenic implications in humans. To investigate this clinically, we conducted an occurrence level analysis on eight categories of retail and cooked food commonly consumed in Malaysia. This was used to estimate the daily exposure level, through a questionnaire-based case-control study involving 77 subjects with renal cancer, with 80 matching controls. Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) was calculated using the multiple logistic regression model adjusted for confounding factors. A pooled estimate of total 3-MCPDE intake per day was compared between both groups, to assess exposure and disease outcome. Among the food categories analysed, vegetable fats and oils recorded the highest occurrence levels (mean: 1.91 ± 1.90 mg/kg), significantly more than all other food categories (p < .05). Risk estimation found the Chinese ethnic group to be five times more likely to develop renal cancer compared to Malays (AOR = 5.15, p = .001). However, an inverse association was observed as the 3-MCPDE exposure among the Malays (median: 0.162 ± 0.229 mg/day/person) were found to be significantly higher than the Chinese (p = .001). There was no significant difference (p = .405) in 3-MCPDE intake between the cases (median: 0.115 ± 0.137 mg/day/person) and controls (median: 0.105 ± 0.151 mg/day/person), with no association between high intake of 3-MCPDE and the development of renal cancer (OR = 1.41, 95% CI: 0.5091-2.5553). Thus, there was insufficient clinical evidence to suggest that this contaminant contributes to the development of renal malignancies in humans through dietary consumption. Further research is necessary to support these findings, which could have significant public health ramifications for the improvement of dietary practices and food safety measures.

Assessment of Adherence to Imatinib and Health-Related Quality of Life Among Patients with Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor: A Cross-Sectional Study in an Oncology Clinic in Malaysia.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the rate and predictors of non-adherence to imatinib in gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) patients, as well as to compare the difference in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) between adherent and non-adherent patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study at the Oncology Clinic, Hospital Kuala Lumpur was conducted from March to August 2018. All patients with metastatic and/or unresectable GIST aged ≥18 years old and on at least 3 months of imatinib were included. Adherence to imatinib was assessed using the 10-item validated Medication Compliance Questionnaire, with a score of <100% indicating non-adherence. Non-adherence predictors were determined by multiple logistic regressions. HRQOL was evaluated by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). The difference in the mean HRQOL scores between adherent and non-adherent groups was determined by multivariate analysis of variance. RESULTS: A total of 89 patients were enrolled, of which 49 (55.1%) were considered non-adherent. The significant predictors of non-adherence were age (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.93; CI 0.89-0.98; P = 0.007), presence of nausea and vomiting (OR 5.63; CI 1.25-25.27; P = 0.024), and presence of comorbidities (OR 4.56; CI 1.44-14.40; P = 0.010). Patients who were in the adherent group showed significantly better score in overall HRQOL, F (15, 73) = 2.09, P < 0.02; Pillai's trace = 0.3, partial eta squared = 0.30. CONCLUSION: Non-adherence to long-term treatment with imatinib among patients with GIST should not be underestimated. Significant predictors of non-adherence among this population are younger age, presence of nausea and vomiting, as well as comorbidities. Patients with good adherence portrayed better HRQOL.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of olanzapine-containing antiemetic therapy for managing highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Southeast Asia: a multinational study.

PURPOSE: Recent studies suggested that olanzapine, together with dexamethasone and serotonin-3 receptor antagonist (5HT3RA), is effective in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) following highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). This regimen is particularly useful in Southeast Asia (SEA) countries where resources are limited. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of incorporating olanzapine into standard antiemetic regimens for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving HEC among SEA countries. 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.

Treatment decision-making among breast cancer patients in Malaysia.

PURPOSE: This study investigated breast cancer patients' involvement level in the treatment decision-making process and the concordance between patients' and physician's perspectives in decision-making. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted involving physicians and newly diagnosed breast cancer patients from three public/teaching hospitals in Malaysia. The Control Preference Scale (CPS) was administered to patients and physicians, and the Krantz Health Opinion Survey (KHOS) was completed by the patients alone. Binary logistic regression was used to determine the association between sociodemographic characteristics, the patients' involvement in treatment decision-making, and patients' preference for behavioral involvement and information related to their disease. RESULTS: The majority of patients preferred to share decision-making with their physicians (47.5%), while the second largest group preferred being passive (42.6%) and a small number preferred being active (9.8%). However, the physicians perceived that the majority of patients preferred active decision-making (56.9%), followed by those who desired shared decision-making (32.8%), and those who preferred passive decision-making (10.3%). The overall concordance was 26.5% (54 of 204 patient-physician dyads). The median of preference for information score and behavioral involvement score was 4 (interquartile range [IQR] =3-5) and 2 (IQR =2-3), respectively. In univariate analysis, the ethnicity and educational qualification of patients were significantly associated with the patients' preferred role in the process of treatment decision-making and the patients' preference for information seeking (p>0.05). However, only educational qualification (p=0.004) was significantly associated with patients' preference for information seeking in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Physicians failed to understand patients' perspectives and preferences in treatment decision-making. The concordance between physicians' perception and patients' perception was quite low as the physicians perceived that more than half of the patients were active in treatment decision-making. In actuality, more than half of patients perceived that they shared decision-making with their physicians.