| Literature DB >> 34221122 |
Ann Abiola Ogbenna1,2, Olufemi Abiola Oyedeji3, Christiana Oluwakemi Famuyiwa4, Babajide Ayodeji Sopekan5, Obadiah Dapus Damulak6, Esere Bernice Akpatason7, Gbenga Olorunfemi8,9, Kehinde Adekola10.
Abstract
The outcome of acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) has remained a major concern even in developed countries. In resource poor countries, it is envisaged that the outcome will be far worse because of late presentations, lack of appropriate diagnostic facilities and supportive care. However, data to validate this is lacking and many of these countries lack an effective cancer registry. This study determined the clinician's perspective of the outcome of care of AML patients in Nigeria and their attitudes to the care of these patients. Structured self-administered questionnaire was used to assess the clinician's perception of outcomes of care, contributory factors and attitude to care of AML patients. Ninety-eight percent of clinicians reported that the outcome of care was suboptimal; 73.3% and 90.6% of the clinicians reported having less than 31% of AML patients surviving induction and post-induction therapies, respectively. Sixty-six-point one percent (66.1%), 50% and 62.7% of the clinicians have never used immunophenotyping, cytogenetic or molecular studies, respectively, in the management of AML patients under their care. Access to blood components other than Red cells was low; 23.3% had access to apheresis platelets and 55% to fresh frozen plasma. Forty-six percent of clinicians will either give half dose of chemotherapy or offer only supportive care. This reported early death rate is three times higher than that reported in developed countries with only 9% likely to survive the first year of induction compared to about 32.9% in Ontario. Approximately 28 units of pooled or apheresis derived platelet may be required in course of therapy but just 10% of clinicians have access to platelet apheresis. Lack of diagnostic facilities, blood components and clinicians' attitudes are contributing factors to the extremely poor outcomes of patients with AML in Nigeria. © the authors; licensee ecancermedicalscience.Entities:
Keywords: blood component in low-income countries; clinical outcome in AML; clinician perspective; cytogenetic and molecular monitoring
Year: 2021 PMID: 34221122 PMCID: PMC8225339 DOI: 10.3332/ecancer.2021.1239
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecancermedicalscience ISSN: 1754-6605
Demographic and clinical experience of respondents.
| Frequency ( | Percentage (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Male | 41 | 63.1 |
| Female | 24 | 36.9 |
| Single | 8 | 12.3 |
| Married | 55 | 84.6 |
| Widower | 2 | 3.1 |
| Christianity | 48 | 73.8 |
| Islam | 17 | 26.2 |
| South south | 19 | 30.6 |
| South west | 29 | 46.8 |
| South central | 3 | 4.8 |
| North central | 5 | 8.1 |
| North east | 2 | 3.2 |
| North west | 4 | 6.5 |
| Consultant | 39 | 60.0 |
| Senior registrar | 12 | 18.5 |
| Junior registrar | 13 | 20.0 |
| Teaching hospitals | 59 | 90.8 |
| General hospitals | 5 | 7.7 |
| Federal hospitals | 1 | 1.5 |
| Consultant | 9.0 (3.5–17.0) | |
| Senior registrar | 5.0 (3.5–7.0) | |
| Junior registrar | 2.0 (1.25–2.0) | |
Self-reported practice of management of AML by Nigerian physicians.
| Frequency | Percentage % | |
|---|---|---|
| 4 (IQR = 5) years | ||
| 20 | 32.3 | |
| Good | 1 | 1.6 |
| Fair | 19 | 31.1 |
| Poor | 23 | 37.7 |
| Very poor | 18 | 29.5 |
| Nil | 10 | 17.9 |
| <10% | 15 | 26.8 |
| 11%–20% | 12 | 21.4 |
| 21%–30% | 4 | 7.1 |
| 31%–40% | 7 | 12.5 |
| 40%–50% | 8 | 14.3 |
| Not sure | 8 | 12.5 |
| Nil | 13 | 24.5 |
| <10% | 24 | 45.3 |
| 11%–20% | 8 | 15.1 |
| 21%–30% | 3 | 5.7 |
| 31%–40% | 3 | 5.7 |
| 40%–50% | 2 | 3.8 |
| Not sure | 11 | 17.2 |
| Yes | 13 | 22.0 |
| No | 46 | 78.0 |
| Cure | 32 | 54.2 |
| Palliative | 27 | 45.8 |
| 1 (IQR = 1, MIN = 1, MAX = 1) | ||
| 0 | ||
BMT, Bone marrow transplant
Figure 1.Frequency in which clinicians base the diagnosis of AML solely on morphology.
Figure 2.Frequency of ancillary mode of diagnosis used by clinicians in the management of AML.
Figure 3.Bar chart showing proportion of clinicians with access to different blood components.
Reasons why clinicians were not comfortable managing AML patients.
| Frequency | Percentage % | |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 12 | 28.6 |
| No | 30 | 71.4 |
| Yes | 2 | 4.8 |
| No | 40 | 95.2 |
| Yes | 6 | 14.3 |
| No | 36 | 85.7 |
| Yes | 6 | 14.3 |
| No | 36 | 85.7 |
| Yes | 8 | 19.0 |
| No | 34 | 81.0 |
| Yes | 26 | 61.9 |
| No | 16 | 38.1 |
Relationship between clinician-related and blood component factors and reported possibility of survival for AML patients.
| None alive | Some alive | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Consultant | 19 (54.3%) | 19 (63.3%) | 0.614 |
| Others | 16 (45.7%) | 11 (36.7%) | |
| Cure | 17 (51.5%) | 15 (57.5%) | 0.793 |
| Palliative | 10 (48.5%) | 11 (42.3%) | |
| Teaching hospital | 31(88.6%) | 28 (93.3%) | 0.275 |
| General hospital | 4 (11.4%) | 1 (3.3%) | |
| Federal medical centre | 0 | 1 (3.3%) | |
| ≤10 years | 28 (80.0%) | 22 (73.3%) | 0.567 |
| >10 years | 7 (20.0) | 8 (26.7%) | |
| 4.0 years (2–10) | 5.5 years (2–12) | 0.895 | |
| Yes | 32 (97.0%) | 27 (96.4%) | 0.906 |
| No | 1 (3.0%) | 1 (3.6%) | |
| Yes | 20 (60.6%) | 18 (64.3%) | 0.768 |
| No | 13 (39.4%) | 10 (35.7%) | |
| Yes | 16 (48.5%) | 17 (60.75) | 0.340 |
| No | 17 (51.5%) | 11 (39.3%) | |
| Yes | 3 (9.1%) | 3 (10.7%) | 0.832 |
| No | 30 (90.9%) | 25 (89.3%) | |
| Yes | 7 (20.6%) | 8 (28.6%) | 0.388 |
| No | 27 (79.4%) | 19 (67.9%) | |
| Yes | 4 (11.4%) | 5 (18.5%) | 0.432 |
| No | 31 (88.6%) | 22 (81.5%) | |
Fishers exact test
Mann–Whitney test
Figure 4.Frequency of response to Likert scale items assessing clinician’s attitude to care of AML patients.
Availability of blood component to clinicians in the six geo-political zones.
| S. East | S. West | S. South | N. Central | N. East | N. West | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 2 (3.4) | 29 (50.0) | 18 (31.0) | 3 (5.2) | 2 (3.4) | 4 (6.9) | 0.382 |
| No | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (50.0) | 1 (50.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | |
| Yes | 2 (5.5) | 25 (67.6) | 7 (18.9) | 3 (8.1) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | <0.001 |
| No | 0 (0.0) | 4 (17.4) | 12 (52.2) | 1 (4.3) | 2 (8.7) | 4 (17.4) | |
| Yes | 1 (3.1) | 24 (75.0) | 4 (12.5) | 2 (6.5) | 1 (3.1) | 0 (0.0) | <0.001 |
| No | 1 (3.6) | 5 (17.9) | 15 (53.6) | 2 (7.1) | 1 (3.6) | 4 (14.3) | |