Search

Background Identifying patients with BRCA mutations is clinically important to inform on the potential response to treatment and for risk management of patients and their relatives. However, traditional referral routes may not meet clinical needs, and therefore, mainstreaming cancer genetics has been shown to be effective in some high-income and high health-literacy settings. To date, no study has reported on the feasibility of mainstreaming in low-income and middle-income settings, where the service considerations and health literacy could detrimentally affect the feasibility of mainstreaming. Methods The Mainstreaming Genetic Counselling for Ovarian Cancer Patients (MaGiC) study is a prospective, two-arm observational study comparing oncologist-led and genetics-led counselling. This study included 790 multiethnic patients with ovarian cancer from 23 sites in Malaysia. We compared the impact of different method of delivery of genetic counselling on the uptake of genetic testing and assessed the feasibility, knowledge and satisfaction of patients with ovarian cancer. Results Oncologists were satisfied with the mainstreaming experience, with 95% indicating a desire to incorporate testing into their clinical practice. The uptake of genetic testing was similar in the mainstreaming and genetics arm (80% and 79%, respectively). Patient satisfaction was high, whereas decision conflict and psychological impact were low in both arms of the study. Notably, decisional conflict, although lower than threshold, was higher for the mainstreaming group compared with the genetics arm. Overall, 13.5% of patients had a pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2, and there was no difference between psychosocial measures for carriers in both arms. Conclusion The MaGiC study demonstrates that mainstreaming cancer genetics is feasible in low-resource and middle-resource Asian setting and increased coverage for genetic testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The HPV vaccine was introduced to Malaysian national immunization programme in 2010. The current implementation age of HPV vaccination in Malaysian is at the age of 13 years school girls, given according to a 3 doses protocol which may complicate implementation and compliance. Aim of the study is to determine the cost-effectiveness of HPV vaccination regime comparing twice versus thrice HPV vaccinations dose regime among adolescent girls in Malaysia.Methods: A Markov cohort model reflecting the natural history of HPV infection accounting for oncogenic and low-risk HPV was adapted for 13 year old Malaysian girls cohort (n = 274,050). Transition probabilities, utilities values, epidemiological and cost data were sourced from published literature and local data. Vaccine effectiveness was based on overall efficacy reported from 3-doses clinical trials, with the assumption that the 2-doses is non-inferior to the 3-doses allowing overall efficacy to be inferred from the 3-doses immunogenicity data. Price parity and life-long protection were assumed. The payer perspective was adopted, with appropriate discounting for costs (3 %) and outcomes (3 %). One way sensitivity analysis was conducted. The sensitivity analysis on cost of vaccine, vaccine coverage and discount rate with a 2-doses protocol was performed.Result: The 3-doses and 2-doses regimes showed same number of Cervical Cancers averted (361 cases); QALYs saved at 7,732,266. However, the lifetime protection under the 2-doses regime, showed a significant cost-savings of RM 36, 722,700 compared to the 3-doses scheme. The MOH Malaysia could vaccinate 137,025 more girls in this country using saving 2-doses regime vaccination programme. The model predicted that 2-doses HPV vaccination schemes can avoid additional 180 Cervical Cancers and 63 deaths compare to 3-doses.Conclusion: A 2-doses HPV vaccination scheme may enable Malaysian women to be protected at a lower cost than that achievable under a 3-doses scheme, while avoiding the same number of Cervical Cancer cases and deaths. Using the saving money with 2-doses, more Cervical Cancers and deaths can be avoided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Identifying patients with BRCA mutations is clinically important to inform on the potential response to treatment and for risk management of patients and their relatives. However, traditional referral routes may not meet clinical needs, and therefore, mainstreaming cancer genetics has been shown to be effective in some high-income and high health-literacy settings. To date, no study has reported on the feasibility of mainstreaming in low-income and middle-income settings, where the service considerations and health literacy could detrimentally affect the feasibility of mainstreaming., Methods: The Mainstreaming Genetic Counselling for Ovarian Cancer Patients (MaGiC) study is a prospective, two-arm observational study comparing oncologist-led and genetics-led counselling. This study included 790 multiethnic patients with ovarian cancer from 23 sites in Malaysia. We compared the impact of different method of delivery of genetic counselling on the uptake of genetic testing and assessed the feasibility, knowledge and satisfaction of patients with ovarian cancer., Results: Oncologists were satisfied with the mainstreaming experience, with 95% indicating a desire to incorporate testing into their clinical practice. The uptake of genetic testing was similar in the mainstreaming and genetics arm (80% and 79%, respectively). Patient satisfaction was high, whereas decision conflict and psychological impact were low in both arms of the study. Notably, decisional conflict, although lower than threshold, was higher for the mainstreaming group compared with the genetics arm. Overall, 13.5% of patients had a pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2, and there was no difference between psychosocial measures for carriers in both arms., Conclusion: The MaGiC study demonstrates that mainstreaming cancer genetics is feasible in low-resource and middle-resource Asian setting and increased coverage for genetic testing., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)