Sociodemographic Factors and Stage of Cancer at Diagnosis: A Population-Based Study in South India.

PURPOSE: Lower socioeconomic status is associated with inferior cancer survival in high-income countries, but whether this applies to low- and middle-income countries is not well described. Here, we use a population-based cancer registry to explore the association between educational level and stage of cancer at diagnosis in South India. METHODS: We used the Trivandrum District population-based cancer registry to identify all cases of breast and cervical cancer (women) and oral cavity (OC) and lung cancer (men) who were diagnosed from 2012 to 2014. Educational status-classified as illiterate/primary school, middle school, or secondary school or higher-was the primary exposure of interest. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients with advanced stage disease at diagnosis defined as stage III and IV (breast, cervix, or OC) or regional/metastatic (lung). RESULTS: The study population included 4,547 patients with breast (n = 2,283), cervix (n = 481), OC (n = 797), and lung (n = 986) cancer. Educational status was 22%, 19%, and 26% for illiterate/primary, middle, and secondary school or higher, respectively. Educational status was missing for 33% of patients. The proportion of all patients with advanced stage disease was 37% (breast), 39% (cervix), 67% (OC), and 88% (lung). Patients with illiterate/primary school educational status were considerably more likely to have advanced breast cancer (50% v 39% v 36%; P < .001), cervix cancer (46% v 43% v 24%; P = .002), and OC cancer (77% v 76% v 59%; P < .001) compared with patients with higher educational levels. The proportion of patients with advanced lung cancer did not vary across educational levels (89% v 84% v 88%; P = .350). CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of patients in South India have advanced cancer at the time of diagnosis. This is particularly true among those with the lowest levels of education. Future health awareness and preventive interventions must target less-educated communities to reduce delays in seeking medical care for cancer.

A Prospective Comparative Study of the Toxicity Profile of 5-Flurouracil, Adriamycin, Cyclophosphamide Regime VS Adriamycin, Paclitaxel Regime in Patients with Locally Advanced Breast Carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: A 5-flurouracil, Adriamycin, Cyclophosphamide (FAC) and Adriamycin, Paclitaxel (AT) are two popular chemotherapeutic regimens for treatment of breast carcinoma. The most time tested and popular regimen is FAC. It is extensively studied for efficacy and toxicity. But data regarding toxicity profile and efficacy of AT regimen is sparse. AIM: To study the toxicity profile, severity of toxicities and clinical response rate of FAC and AT regimens in patients with locally advanced breast carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective observational study with 50 patients in each treatment arm. Study duration was 12 months from November 2012 to October 2013. Consecutive patients with locally advanced breast carcinoma receiving treatment with either FAC or AT regimen, satisfying inclusion criteria were enrolled into the study after getting informed written consent. Prior to initiation of treatment detailed medical history was taken from all patients. General clinical examination, examination of organ systems and local examination of breast lump were done. After each cycle of chemotherapy and after completion of treatment patients were interviewed and examined for clinical response and toxicities. Toxicities were graded with WHO toxicity grading criteria. All data were entered in a structured proforma. At least 50% reduction in tumour size was taken as adequate clinical response. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Data was analysed using Chi-square test with help of Excel 2007 and SPSS-16 statistical software. RESULTS: Different pattern of toxicities were seen with FAC and AT regimens. Anaemia, thrombocytopenia, stomatitis, hyperpigmentation, photosensitivity and diarrhoea were more common with patients receiving FAC regimen. Leucopenia, peripheral neuropathy, myalgia, arthralgia, vomiting and injection site reactions were more common in AT regimen. Both FAC and AT regimens gave 100% clinical response. CONCLUSION: FAC and AT regimens are equally efficacious but have different toxicity profiles. Patient's predisposition to toxicities may govern the selection of a particular regime.