Discriminatory Ability and Clinical Utility of the AJCC7 and AJCC8 Staging Systems for Breast Cancer in a Middle-Income Setting.

(1) Background: Differences in access to biomarker testing and cancer treatment in resource-limited settings may affect the clinical utility of the AJCC8 staging system compared to the anatomical AJCC7 system. (2) Methods: A total of 4151 Malaysian women who were newly diagnosed with breast cancer from 2010 to 2020 were followed-up until December 2021. All patients were staged using the AJCC7 and AJCC8 systems. Overall survival (OS) and relative survival (RS) were determined. Concordance-index was used to compare the discriminatory ability between the two systems. (3) Results: Migration from the AJCC7 to AJCC8 staging system resulted in the downstaging of 1494 (36.0%) patients and the upstaging of 289 (7.0%) patients. Approximately 5% of patients could not be staged using the AJCC8 classification. Five-year OS varied between 97% (Stage IA) and 66% (Stage IIIC) for AJCC7, and 96% (Stage IA) and 60% (Stage IIIC) for AJCC8. Concordance-indexes for predicting OS using the AJCC7 and AJCC8 models were 0.720 (0.694-0.747) and 0.745 (0.716-0.774), and for predicting RS they were 0.692 (0.658-0.728) and 0.710 (0.674-0.748), respectively. (4) Conclusions: Given the comparable discriminatory ability between the two staging systems in predicting the stage-specific survival of women with breast cancer in the current study, the continued use of the AJCC7 staging system in resource-limited settings seems pragmatic and justifiable.

Association Between Adherence to Clinical Practice Guidelines for Adjuvant Therapy for Breast Cancer and Survival in a Resource-Limited Setting.

PURPOSE: Addressing unwarranted clinical variation in oncology practices is expected to lead to improved cancer outcomes. Particularly, the application and impact of treatment guidelines on breast cancer outcomes are poorly studied in resource-limited settings. We measured adherence to a set of locally developed adjuvant treatment guidelines in a middle-income setting. Importantly, the impact of guidelines adherence on survival following breast cancer was determined. METHODS: Data of 3,100 Malaysian women with nonmetastatic breast cancer diagnosed between 2010 and 2017 were analyzed. Adherence to the Malaysian Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Breast Cancer second Edition was measured. Outcomes comprised overall survival and event-free survival. RESULTS: Guideline adherence for chemotherapy, radiotherapy, hormonal therapy, and targeted therapy were 61.7%, 79.2%, 85.1%, and 26.2%, respectively. Older age was generally associated with lower adherence to guidelines. Compared with patients who were treated according to treatment guidelines, overall survival and event-free survival were substantially lower in patients who were not treated accordingly; hazard ratios for all-cause mortality were 1.69 (95% CI, 1.29 to 2.22), 2.59 (95% CI, 1.76 to 3.81), 3.08 (95% CI, 1.94 to 4.88), and 4.48 (95% CI, 1.98 to 10.13) for chemotherapy, radiotherapy, hormone therapy, and targeted therapy, respectively. Study inferences remain unchanged following sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Our study findings appear to suggest that adherence to treatment guidelines that have been adapted for resource-limited settings may still provide effective guidance in improving breast cancer outcomes.

Patient-reported outcome measures among breast cancer survivors: A cross-sectional comparison between Malaysia and high-income countries.

OBJECTIVES: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in high-income countries (HICs) suggest that physical, emotional, and psychological needs are important in cancer care. To date, there have been few inconsistent descriptions of PROs in low-income and middle-income Asian countries. Using a standard questionnaire developed by the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM), we compared the perceived importance of PROs between patients in Malaysia and those in HICs and between clusters of Malaysian women. METHODS: Breast cancer patients were recruited from three Malaysian hospitals between June and November 2017. We compared the proportion of patients who rated PROs as very important (scored 7-9 on a 9-point Likert scale) between Malaysian patients and data collected from patients in HICs via the ICHOM questionnaire development process, using logistic regression. A two-step cluster analysis explored differences in PROs among Malaysian patients. RESULTS: The most important PROs for both cohorts were survival, overall well-being, and physical functioning. Compared with HIC patients (n = 1177), Malaysian patients (n = 969) were less likely to rate emotional (78% vs 90%), cognitive (76% vs 84%), social (72% vs 81%), and sexual (30% vs 56%) functioning as very important outcomes (P < 0.001). Cluster analysis suggests that older, parous, Malaysian women, who were less likely to have received breast reconstructive surgery, were more likely to rate body image and satisfaction with the breast as very important outcomes. CONCLUSION: Taking into account the differences in PROs by cultural and socioeconomic settings could improve patient expectation of services and refine the assessment of cancer care outcomes.

Surgery for BRCA, TP53 and PALB2: a literature review.

INTRODUCTION: The presence of a deleterious mutation, most commonly a BRCA mutation, has a tremendous impact on the management of breast cancer. We review the surgical management of BRCA mutation carriers, and two other potentially high-risk mutations, TP53 and PALB2. METHODOLOGY: A search was done on PubMed, limited to reviews and the English language only. The search terms used were 'BRCA' or 'PALB2' or 'TP53' and 'surgery'. Fifteen articles were identified by searching and one article was obtained from other sources. RESULTS: Breast-conserving surgery has equivalent survival, but may have an increased risk of local recurrence, compared to mastectomy among BRCA mutation carriers. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy may not improve overall survival, despite reducing the risk of developing contralateral breast cancer. The use of preoperative genetic testing allows patients to have combined curative and prophylactic surgery. However, preoperative genetic testing may influence patients to make rash decisions. In healthy BRCA mutation carriers, bilateral prophylactic mastectomy is done to prevent breast cancer from occurring. Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy is highly effective in reducing the risk of breast cancer in healthy BRCA mutation-positive women and may have a survival benefit. Prophylactic oophorectomy reduces the risk of ovarian cancer, but may not have an effect on the risk of breast cancer. There is a lack of studies on surgery for non-BRCA mutations. TP53 and PALB2 are potentially high-risk mutations for breast cancer, which may justify the use of prophylactic surgery. Advice should be given on a case-by-case basis. CONCLUSION: A comprehensive approach is needed to provide optimum treatment for breast cancer patients with deleterious mutations.