Understanding of disease status, prognosis and estimated cost of treatment among cancer patients: experience from a tertiary cancer centre in Nepal.

Purpose: Lack of adequate knowledge about the disease is one of the key factors that misguide cancer patients and patients' caregivers in choosing a better management plan. The purpose of the study was to assess the patients' and caregivers' knowledge about the disease status and estimated treatment cost. Understanding of disease may improve adherence to treatment plans and quality of care. Methods: It was a cross-sectional study where 120 cancer patients were selected based on convenience sampling and the availability of record files and relevant data. The site, stage and prognosis of disease recorded from patients and caregivers were compared with the record of outpatient department and inpatient files with the help of the Fisher's exact test. The patients' knowledge about their financial estimates was also recorded. Three patients were selected for in-depth interviews based on purposive sampling to further support the findings. Results: Among 120 analysed patients, 60.83% were female. Around two-thirds of male patients (69.2%) and male caregivers (62.2%) knew about the site but only one-third of female patients (30.8%) and female caregivers (37.8%) knew the same. The primary responsibility for managing financial issues was caregivers in 89.16%. Only 7.5% knew the estimated cost. Nepali as the primary language and better education level is correlated with knowledge of disease status, among both patients and caregivers but was statistically significant only in knowing prognosis among native Nepali speaker caregivers (p < 0.001), and better-educated patients (p < 0.001). As per the in-depth interview, all three patients knew the site of their disease, but only the patient with breast cancer was aware of the stage of the disease. None of the patients were aware of their disease prognosis, treatment plan or the estimated cost of their treatment. Conclusion: The level of understanding is low for most patients and their immediate caregivers, particularly among those who are female, not literate and whose primary language is not Nepali. Appropriate strategy should be adopted to enhance basic understanding among patients and caregivers in our setting.

Feasibility of monitoring Global Breast Cancer Initiative Framework key performance indicators in 21 Asian National Cancer Centers Alliance member countries.

Background: The Global Breast Cancer Initiative (GBCI) Framework, launched by the World Health Organisation (WHO) in 2023, emphasises assessing, strengthening, and scaling up services for the early detection and management of breast cancer. This study aims to determine the feasibility of monitoring the status of breast cancer control in the 21 Asian National Cancer Centers Alliance (ANCCA) countries based on the three GBCI Framework key performance indicators (KPIs): stage at diagnosis, time to diagnosis, and treatment completion. Methods: We reviewed published literature on breast cancer control among 21 ANCCA countries from May to July 2023 to establish data availability and compiled the latest descriptive statistics and sources of the indicators using a standardised data collection form. We performed bivariate Pearson's correlation analysis to measure the strength of correlation between stage at diagnosis, mortality and survival rates, and universal health coverage. Findings: Only 12 (57%) ANCCA member countries published national cancer registry reports on breast cancer age-standardised incidence rate (ASIR) and age-standardised mortality rate (ASMR). Indonesia, Myanmar, and Nepal had provincial data and others relied on WHO's Global Cancer Observatory (GLOBOCAN) estimates. GLOBOCAN data differed from the reported national statistics by 5-10% in Bhutan, Indonesia, Iran, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, and Thailand and >10% in China, India, Malaysia, Mongolia, and Sri Lanka. The proportion of patients diagnosed in stages I and II strongly correlated with the five-year survival rate and with the universal health coverage (UHC) index. Three countries (14%) reported national data with >60% of invasive breast cancer patients diagnosed at stages I and II, and a five-year survival rate of >80%. Over 60% of the ANCCA countries had no published national data on breast cancer staging, the time interval from presentation to diagnosis, and diagnosis to treatment. Five (24%) countries reported data on treatment completion. The definition of delayed diagnosis and treatment completion varied across countries. Interpretation: GBCI's Pillar 1 KPI correlates strongly with five-year survival rate and with the UHC index. Most ANCCA countries lacked national data on cancer staging, timely diagnosis, and treatment completion KPIs. While institutional-level data were available in some countries, they may not represent the nationwide status. Strengthening cancer surveillance is crucial for effective breast cancer control. The GBCI Framework indicators warrant more detailed definitions for standardised data collection. Surrogate indicators which are measurable and manageable in country-specific settings, could be considered for monitoring GBCI indicators. Ensuring UHC and addressing health inequalities are essential to early diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. Funding: Funding for this research article's processing fee (APC) will be provided by the affiliated institution to support the open-access publication of this work. The funding body is not involved in the study design; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of data; or the decision to submit for publication. The funding body will be informed of any planned publications, and documentation provided.

Evaluation of Quality Indicators of Breast Cancer Management at a Tertiary Cancer Center in Nepal.

PURPOSE: Breast cancer is the second commonest cancer among female in Nepal. This is our first attempt to audit breast cancer management in our institute and compare with standard quality indicators (QIs) available. METHODS: The retrospective study included 104 female patients with breast cancer who had taken treatment at Bhaktapur Cancer Hospital in 1 year. Participants were selected on the basis of convenience sampling. Of 33 QIs in breast cancer management according to European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists guidelines, 19 QIs were chosen relevant to our setup. These QIs were calculated for all patients and compared with the European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists standard target. Frequencies and percentages were calculated and presented in tables. Binomial 95% of the rates for QI adherence were also calculated for each QI. RESULTS: One hundred four patients had a median age of 47.5 years (range 24-70 years). Applicable QIs were in the range of 5-15 with a mean of 9.66 per patient. Of 19 evaluable QIs, very high adherence rates were observed in six QIs, high adherence in three Qis, and low adherences in 10 QIs. High adherence rates were for QI 5 and QI 10a, which were 88.46% and 94.73%, respectively. The low compliance was for QI 1, QI 4a, QI 8, QI 9d, QI 10b, QI 11a, QI 11b, QI 13b, QI 13e, and 14b, which were 53.84%, 78.21%, 0%, 83.16%, 76.92%, 36.0%, 33.33%, 4.76%, 30.55%, and 10.81%, respectively. CONCLUSION: There are several QIs that have low levels of adherence in our setting and suggest that there is significant room for improvement. We will be continuing auditing these QIs regularly to improve our quality of care.

Prioritizing Delivery of Cancer Treatment During a COVID-19 Lockdown: The Experience of a Clinical Oncology Service in India.

PURPOSE: A COVID-19 lockdown in India posed significant challenges to the continuation of radiotherapy (RT) and systemic therapy services. Although several COVID-19 service guidelines have been promulgated, implementation data are yet unavailable. We performed a comprehensive audit of the implementation of services in a clinical oncology department. METHODS: A departmental protocol of priority-based treatment guidance was developed, and a departmental staff rotation policy was implemented. Data were collected for the period of lockdown on outpatient visits, starting, and delivery of RT and systemic therapy. Adherence to protocol was audited, and factors affecting change from pre-COVID standards analyzed by multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Outpatient consults dropped by 58%. Planned RT starts were implemented in 90%, 100%, 92%, 90%, and 75% of priority level 1-5 patients. Although 17% had a deferred start, the median time to start of adjuvant RT and overall treatment times were maintained. Concurrent chemotherapy was administered in 89% of those eligible. Systemic therapy was administered to 84.5% of planned patients. However, 33% and 57% of curative and palliative patients had modifications in cycle duration or deferrals. The patient's inability to come was the most common reason for RT or ST deviation. Factors independently associated with a change from pre-COVID practice was priority-level allocation for RT and age and palliative intent for systemic therapy. CONCLUSION: Despite significant access limitations, a planned priority-based system of delivery of treatment could be implemented.