| Literature DB >> 28448541 |
Noor Mastura Mohd Mujar1, Maznah Dahlui2, Nor Aina Emran3, Imisairi Abdul Hadi3, Yan Yang Wai3, Sarojah Arulanantham3, Chea Chan Hooi3, Nur Aishah Mohd Taib4.
Abstract
Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is widely used among the breast cancer patients in Malaysia. Delays in presentation, diagnosis and treatment have been shown to impact the disease prognosis. There is considerable use of CAM amongst breast cancer patients. CAM use has been cited as a cause of delay in diagnosis and treatments in qualitative studies, however there had not been any confirmatory study that confirms its impact on delays. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the use of CAM among newly diagnosed breast cancer patients was associated with delays in presentation, diagnosis or treatment of breast cancer. This multi-centre cross-sectional study evaluating the time points of the individual breast cancer patients' journey from first visit, resolution of diagnosis and treatments was conducted in six public hospitals in Malaysia. All newly diagnosed breast cancer patients from 1st January to 31st December 2012 were recruited. Data were collected through medical records review and patient interview by using a structured questionnaire. Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) was defined as the use of any methods and products not included in conventional allopathic medicine before commencement of treatments. Presentation delay was defined as time taken from symptom discovery to first presentation of more than 3 months. The time points were categorised to diagnosis delay was defined as time taken from first presentation to diagnosis of more than 1 month and treatment delay was defined as time taken from diagnosis to initial treatment of more than 1 month. Multiple logistic regression was used for analysis. A total number of 340 patients participated in this study. The prevalence of CAM use was 46.5% (n = 158). Malay ethnicity (OR 3.32; 95% CI: 1.85, 5.97) and not interpreting symptom as cancerous (OR 1.79; 95% CI: 1.10, 2.92) were significantly associated with CAM use. The use of CAM was associated with delays in presentation (OR 1.65; 95% CI: 1.05, 2.59), diagnosis (OR 2.42; 95% CI: 1.56, 3.77) and treatment of breast cancer (OR 1.74; 95% CI: 1.11, 2.72) on univariate analyses. However, after adjusting with other covariates, CAM use was associated with delays in presentation (OR 1.71; 95% CI: 1.05, 2.78) and diagnosis (OR 2.58; 95% CI: 1.59, 4.17) but not for treatment of breast cancer (OR 1.58; 95% CI: 0.98, 2.55). The prevalence of CAM use among the breast cancer patients was high. Women of Malay ethnicity and not interpreting symptom as cancerous were significantly associated with CAM use. The use of CAM is significantly associated with delay in presentation and resolution of diagnosis. This study suggests further evaluation of access to breast cancer care is needed as poor access may cause the use of CAM. However, since public hospitals in Malaysia are heavily subsidized and readily available to the population, CAM use may impact delays in presentation and diagnosis.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28448541 PMCID: PMC5407802 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0176394
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Types of complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) used by the breast cancer patients (n = 158).
| Types of CAM | Cases (n) | Total (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Biological based practices | 120 (75.9) | ||
| Nutritional supplements (multivitamin) | 108 | ||
| Special diet (herbs, juices) | 12 | ||
| Mind-body medicines | 61 (38.6) | ||
| Prayers | 53 | ||
| Others (meditation, tai chi, yoga, qigong) | 8 | ||
| Whole medical system | 56 (35.4) | ||
| Traditional Chinese medicine | 38 | ||
| Cupping | 10 | ||
| Homeopathy | 5 | ||
| Ayurveda | 3 | ||
| Energy medicines | 5 (3.2) | ||
| Ozone therapy | 5 | ||
| Manipulative and body-based therapies | 3 (1.9) | ||
| Massage | 3 | ||
Total percentage may not be 100% due to the choice given for multiple responses.
Characteristic of Non CAM and CAM user among the breast cancer patients (N = 340).
| Characteristic | Non-CAM user (n = 182) | CAM user | Adjusted OR | P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | |||||
| Median (range) | 53 (25, 74) | 53 (23,73) | 0.99 (0.97, 1.01) | 0.613 | |
| Study locations | |||||
| Kuala Lumpur (1) | 56 (56.0) | 44 (44.0) | 1.00 | - | |
| Kuala Lumpur (2) | 43 (53.8) | 37 (46.3) | 0.86 (0.43, 1.72) | 0.672 | |
| Perak | 28 (58.3) | 20 (41.7) | 0.79 (0.37, 1.69) | 0.544 | |
| Johor | 26 (52.0) | 24 (48.0) | 0.79 (0.35, 1.79) | 0.586 | |
| Kelantan | 5 (25.0) | 15 (75.0) | 2.24 (0.64, 7.76) | 0.203 | |
| Sarawak | 24 (57.1) | 18 (42.9) | 1.06 (0.43, 2.62) | 0.884 | |
| Ethnicity | |||||
| Chinese | 71 (68.3) | 33 (31.7) | 1.00 | - | |
| Malay | 62 (40.3) | 92 (59.7) | <0.001 | ||
| Indian | 32 (59.3) | 22 (40.7) | 1.37 (0.64, 2.93) | 0.409 | |
| Others | 17 (60.7) | 11 (39.3) | 1.38 (0.53, 3.58) | 0.499 | |
| Educational level | |||||
| Tertiary | 25 (51.0) | 24 (49.0) | 1.00 | - | |
| Secondary | 141 (54.7) | 117 (45.3) | 0.92 (0.46, 1.85) | 0.827 | |
| Primary | 16 (48.5) | 17 (51.5) | 1.26 (0.44, 3.59) | 0.663 | |
| Marital status | |||||
| Married | 140 (54.1) | 119 (45.9) | 1.00 | - | |
| Single | 42 (51.9) | 39 (48.1) | 1.09 (0.58, 2.06) | 0.729 | |
| Household income | |||||
| ≤RM3000 | 129 (52.9) | 115 (47.1) | 1.00 | - | |
| >RM3000 | 53 (55.2) | 43 (44.8) | 1.13 (0.65, 1.96) | 0.654 | |
| Employment status | |||||
| Employed | 55 (50.5) | 54 (49.5) | 1.00 | - | |
| Unemployed | 127 (55.0) | 104 (45.0) | 0.99 (0.58, 1.68) | 0.970 | |
| Family history with breast cancer | |||||
| Yes | 27 (43.5) | 35 (56.5) | 1.00 | - | |
| No | 155 (55.8) | 123 (44.2) | 0.57 (0.31, 1.05) | 0.072 | |
| Symptom included breast lump | |||||
| Yes | 158 (52.7) | 142 (47.3) | 1.00 | - | |
| No | 24 (60.0) | 16 (40.0) | 0.63 (0.30, 1.32) | 0.229 | |
| Interpret symptom as cancer | |||||
| Yes | 124 (57.7) | 91 (42.3) | 1.00 | - | |
| No | 58 (46.4) | 67 (53.6) | 0.018 | ||
| Stage at diagnosis | |||||
| Stage I | 33 (55.9) | 26 (44.1) | 1.00 | - | |
| Stage II | 74 (57.8) | 54 (42.2) | 0.79 (0.39, 1.58) | 0.509 | |
| Stage III | 58 (50.9) | 56 (49.1) | 1.04 (0.50, 2.15) | 0.910 | |
| Stage IV | 17 (43.6) | 22 (56.4) | 1.30 (0.52, 3.21) | 0.565 | |
| Initial treatment | |||||
| Adherence | 155 (54.8) | 128 (45.2) | 1.00 | - | |
| Non-adherence | 27 (47.4) | 30 (52.6) | 1.34 (0.76, 2.38) | 0.308 | |
Multivariable Logistic Regression, Significant value p<0.05.
Univariate analysis of association between CAM use and delays in presentation, diagnosis and treatment among the breast cancer patients (N = 340).
| Characteristic | Presentation | Diagnosis | Treatment | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median (range) | 2.4 months | 26 days | 21 days | ||||
| Delays, n (%) | 119 (35) | 142 (41.8) | 120 (35.3) | ||||
| CAM | |||||||
| Non-user | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - | |
| User | 0.028 | <0.001 | 0.015 | ||||
Univariable Logistic Regression, Significant value p<0.05.
Multivariate analysis of association between CAM use and other characteristics with delays in presentation, diagnosis and treatment among the breast cancer patients (N = 340).
| Characteristic | Delay in presentation | Delay in diagnosis | Delay in treatment | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adjusted OR | P value | Adjusted OR | P value | Adjusted OR | P value | ||
| CAM | |||||||
| Non-user | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - | |
| User | 0.029 | <0.001 | 1.58 (0.98, 2.55) | 0.058 | |||
| Age | |||||||
| ≤50 years | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - | |
| >50 years | 0.65 (0.39, 1.09) | 0.110 | 1.21 (0.72, 2.02) | 0.470 | 1.02 (0.61, 1.71) | 0.919 | |
| Ethnicity | |||||||
| Chinese | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - | |
| Malay | 1.24 (0.70, 2.18) | 0.449 | 0.90 (0.51, 1.57) | 0.711 | 1.53 (0.86, 2.70) | 0.142 | |
| Indian | 0.69 (0.32, 1.48) | 0.343 | 1.13 (0.55, 2.33) | 0.721 | 1.69 (0.80, 3.56) | 0.164 | |
| Others | 0.81 (0.31, 2.11) | 0.664 | 0.51 (0.18, 1.41) | 0.199 | 0.95 (0.35, 2.54) | 0.922 | |
| Educational level | |||||||
| Tertiary | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - | |
| Secondary | 1.75 (0.82, 3.72) | 0.148 | 0.98 (0.48, 1.98) | 0.959 | 1.03 (0.50, 2.11) | 0.928 | |
| Primary | 1.88 (0.64, 5.50) | 0.250 | 2.01 (0.71, 5.65) | 0.185 | 1.92 (0.69, 5.34) | 0.209 | |
| Marital status | |||||||
| Married | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - | |
| Single | 1.51 (0.86, 2.65) | 0.146 | 1.27 (0.73, 2.22) | 0.387 | 0.76 (0.43, 1.34) | 0.354 | |
| Household income | |||||||
| ≤RM3000 | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - | |
| >RM3000 | 1.56 (0.93, 2.63) | 0.090 | 0.64 (0.37, 1.10) | 0.108 | 1.07 (0.59, 1.70) | 0.979 | |
| Employment | |||||||
| Employed | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - | |
| Unemployed | 1.62 (0.93, 2.82) | 0.088 | 0.68 (0.40, 1.17) | 0.174 | 0.88 (0.51, 1.51) | 0.648 | |
| Family history with breast cancer | |||||||
| Yes | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - | |
| No | 1.65 (0.86, 3.17) | 0.126 | 0.80 (0.44, 1.47) | 0.486 | 0.049 | ||
| Symptomatic breast lump | |||||||
| Yes | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - | -Nil- | ||
| No | 0.94 (0.45, 1.94) | 0.869 | 0.033 | ||||
| Interpret symptom as cancer | |||||||
| Yes | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - | -Nil- | ||
| No | 0.77 (0.47, 1.27) | 0.316 | 0.91 (0.56, 1.49) | 0.734 | |||
| Surgical services | |||||||
| Breast surgeon | -Nil- | -Nil- | 1.00 | - | |||
| General surgeon | 1.50 (0.91, 2.48) | 0.111 | |||||
| Oncology services | |||||||
| Available | -Nil- | -Nil- | 1.00 | - | |||
| Not available | 0.88 (0.48, 1.62) | 0.694 | |||||
Multivariable Logistic Regression, Significant value p<0.05, Nil = Not included.