Disparities in Access to Systemic Treatment for Breast Cancer in Thailand and Major Asian Territories

PurposeBreast cancer (BC) treatment has shifted from chemotherapy to targeted therapy. Several targeted agents have demonstrated an improvement in survival. Given that national healthcare resources were correlated with the cancer mortality-to-incidence ratio, we compared access to BC drugs in Thailand with that in other Asian countries.MethodsBC experts involved in the Breast International Group (BIG)-Asia in six representative groups for countries or special administrative region (SAR) in Asia (Hong Kong SAR, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and Singapore) were invited to participate in the survey. The questionnaire addressed national health reimbursement schemes, molecular testing for early BC (EBC), availability and accessibility of BC drugs. Accessibility and reimbursement of the drugs were reported based on their listing as essential medicines in the World Health Organization Model List of Essential Medicines (WHO-EML) and their nomination as effective drugs in the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). The study was approved by all participating BIG-Asia organizations in November 2021.ResultsGenomic tests for EBC were non-reimbursable in all surveyed territories. Reimbursement and co-payment of BC drugs vary between and within these regions (particularly Thailand). Most drugs in the WHO-EML and ESMO-MCBS (A/B for EBC and 4/5 for advanced BC) were accessible in all surveyed territories. However, the accessibility of effective but costly WHO-EML and ESMO-MCBS drugs was not uniform in Thailand. There was an evident disparity for individuals covered by the Thai Social Security/Universal Health Coverage schemes.ConclusionEssential BC drugs are generally accessible in selected BIG-Asia countries or SAR. There is a disparity in accessing high-cost drugs in Thailand compared with other Asian territories.     

The effect of combined of hyaluronic acid dermal filler and microfocused ultrasound treatment: A clinicopathological study

Objectives

Microfocused ultrasound (MFU) and hyaluronic acid (HA) filler injection are increasingly popular aesthetic procedures. HA filler injection is generally recommended after MFU if combined treatment is required in a single visit. However, data regarding the safe and optimal time of MFU treatment after HA injection is still limited. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the degree of HA loss when performing MFU treatment after dermal filler injection.

Methods

Fourteen subjects were recruited in this pilot study. HA was injected intradermally on four 2 × 2 cm areas at the abdomen (0.25 ml/site). Site A was served as control whereas site B, C, D were treated with MFU using 1.5 mm transducer at 60 min, Day 14, and Day 28 after the injection, respectively. All experimental sites were biopsied using a 3-mm punch biopsy to evaluate the histopathological profile at baseline and Day 56. Grading of the quantity of retained HA was evaluated by a blinded experienced dermatopathologist.

Results

All 14 subjects completed the study. One subject has been excluded due to the poor quality of histopathologic slides. Seven subjects (53.9%) at site B and 6 subjects (46.2%) at site C had HA loss at Day 56 compared with baseline. The mean HA grading at baseline and Day 56 was 3.7 vs. 2.8 (p < 0.001) at site B and 3.7 vs. 3.0 (p = 0.001) at site C, respectively. There was no statistical difference between the mean HA grading at baseline and Day 56 at site D (3.7 vs. 3.3, p = 0.073). No inflammation or granuloma was observed on Day 56 of the study.

Conclusions

MFU treatment after HA injection appears to be safe. However, some degree of HA loss was observed if MFU treatment was done within 2 weeks after HA injection.     

A comparative study of pain perception during the microfocused ultrasound procedure between topical anesthesia and combined topical anesthesia with forced air cooling

Background

The experience of pain during microfocused ultrasound with visualization (MFU-V) treatment is common and crucial for dictating patient satisfaction and retention.

Objective

To compare the pain perception during the MFU-V procedure between two pain reduction methods (topical anesthesia alone versus combined topical anesthesia with forced air cooling).

Materials and Methods

This was a prospective, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial. A square area on the inner side of both arms of healthy volunteers was marked as an experimental site and randomly assigned to receive each pain reduction method: topical anesthesia or combined topical anesthesia with forced air cooling. Thereafter, MFU-V was performed with a 4.5 MHz, 4.5 mm transducer (10 lines, 0.9 J) followed by a 7 MHz, 3.0 mm transducer (10 lines, 0.3 J). The visual analog scale (VAS) for pain was measured immediately after 4.5 mm transducer (T1a), immediately after 3.0 mm transducer (T1b), and after the entire procedure (T2).

Results

Twenty-one participants with a mean (SD) age of 34.67 (±6.18) years were enrolled. The mean (±SD) pain score of combined topical anesthesia with forced air cooling-treated area was 5.40 (±1.64), 4.80 (±1.63), and 5.40 (±1.56) at T1a, T1b, and T2, respectively. The mean pain score for topical anesthesia-treated areas was 5.89 (±1.45), 5.00 (±1.72), and 5.76 (±1.67) at T1a, T1b, and T2, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in the pain perception between the two methods.

Conclusion

The addition of forced air cooling is not beneficial for pain reduction during the MFU-V procedure because its temperature reduction effect cannot be delivered to the deep parts of the skin, which is the target site of MFU-V.     

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis: systematic review of cost-effectiveness analysis

The European Journal of Health Economics - Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a less invasive and costly treatment for patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). This study aimed to...     

Follow-Up Strategies and Detection of Recurrent Breast Cancer in the Modern Era

Background: Regular history assessments and physical examination with annual breast imaging have been recommended as the standard surveillance protocol for breast cancer patients who underwent curative-intent therapy. Based on randomized studies conducted in the 2000s, surveillance with regular chest or abdominal imaging, chemistry panels, or tumor marker measurements does not improve survival in such patients. Given the remarkable recent improvements of systemic therapy, we hypothesized that more intensive surveillance may lead to early detection and improve treatment outcomes in the modern era. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated the follow-up strategies and benefits of investigations used in usual practice. Breast cancer patients who had initial adjuvant therapy were recruited and classified according to the receipt of standard follow-up (history, physical examination, and annual breast imaging) or alternative follow-up (surveillance with at least annual chest or abdominal imaging or biannual liver function testing). The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes included disease-free survival and the indicator of recurrence detection. Results: Of 412 recruited patients, 213 (51.7%) and 199 patients (49.3%) were included in the standard follow-up group and alternative follow-up group, respectively. Among 90 patients (21%) with disease recurrence, the most frequent indicators of recurrence were newly reported symptoms or physical examination abnormalities (64%), followed by abnormal breast imaging (23%) and abnormal chest X-ray (10%). After a median follow-up of 85 months, approximately 90% of patients remained alive after 5 years in both groups. The mean overall survival was similar between the standard and alternative follow-up groups (154.5 months vs. 151.9 months, p = 0.54). There was no difference in terms of the proportion of interval visits, specific cancer treatment received, and disease-free survival. Conclusion: Standard follow-up with history assessments, physical examination, and annual breast imaging remains the recommended surveillance strategy in the modern era. Alternative follow-up strategy did not improve oncologic outcomes.