Search

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are essential for identifying how patients perceive the outcomes of their cancer treatment, and is the ultimate success of cancer care. Although a growing number of studies have focused on PROMs in high income countries (HICs), outcomes relevant to patients in developing countries are less understood. Furthermore, the lack of standardization in PROMs makes it difficult to interpret these data for research or quality monitoring. Aim: In this study, we compared the results of PROM measures between patients in Malaysia, a middle income country, and those in HICs, using standard PROMs questionnaires. We also explored the differences in perceived importance of patient reported outcomes within the multiracial Malaysian cohort. Methods: Breast cancer patients (n=1063) were recruited in hospitals serving suburban areas of Malaysia. Of these, 969 patients were eligible for analysis. The surveys were conducted through face-to-face interviews (68%) or were self-administered (30%). An outcome was considered important if it was scored between 7-9 on a 9-point Likert scale. We compared PROMs scores between Malaysian patients and data previously collected from patients in HICs using logistic regression models, adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics. A two-step cluster analysis was conducted to explore differences in the perceived importance of PROMs between clusters of Malaysian patients. Results: Compared with 1777 patients from HICs, Malaysian patients were less likely to rate overall and recurrence free survival, as well as emotional, cognitive, social and sexual functioning as very important outcomes. Interestingly, more Malaysian women reported that pain (50% vs. 39%), breast symptoms (51% vs. 35%), and major complications (60% vs. 44%) were very important outcomes (P < 0.001). Compared with young, married Malaysian women, the cluster of older married women (mean age of 57 vs. 52), who were less likely to have received breast reconstructive surgery (8.6% vs. 16.8%), was more likely to rate sexual functioning (32.8% vs. 25.0%, P = 0.036), body image (63.9% vs. 42.4%, P < 0.001), and satisfaction with the breast (50.7% vs. 37.0%, P = 0.011) as very important outcomes. Conclusion: The differences in breast cancer patient needs between and within populations should be considered carefully to better clinician-patient relationship, patient care and satisfaction and assess the outcomes of our cancer care. Future research is needed to find suitable targeted interventions to identify and address the diverse needs of breast cancer patients in low and middle income countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]