Delays in the presentation and diagnosis of women with breast cancer in Yogyakarta, Indonesia: A retrospective observational study

Purpose To investigate factors associated with delays in presentation and diagnosis of women with confirmed breast cancer (BC). Methods A cross-sectional study nested in an ongoing prospective cohort study of breast cancer patients at Dr Sardjito Hospital, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, was employed. Participants (n = 150) from the main study were recruited, with secondary information on demographic, clinical, and tumor variables collected from the study database. A questionnaire was used to gather data on other socioeconomic variables, herbal consumption, number of healthcare visits, knowledge-attitude-practice of BC, and open-ended questions relating to initial presentation. Presentation delay (time between initial symptom and first consultation) was defined as ≥3 months. Diagnosis delay was defined as ≥1 month between presentation and diagnosis confirmation. Impact on disease stage and determinants of both delays were examined. A Kruskal-Wallis test was used to assess the length and distribution of delays by disease stage. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to explore the association between delays, cancer stage and factors. Results Sixty-five (43.3%) patients had a ≥3-month presentation delay and 97 (64.7%) had a diagnosis confirmation by ≥1 month. Both presentation and diagnosis delays increased the risk of being diagnosed with cancer stage III-IV (odds ratio/OR 2.21, 95% CI 0.97–5.01, p = 0.059 and OR 3.03, 95% CI 1.28–7.19, p = 0.012). Visit to providers ≤3 times was significantly attributed to a reduced diagnosis delay (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.06–0.37, p <0.001), while having a family history of cancer was significantly associated with increased diagnosis delay (OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.03–5.04, p = 0.042). The most frequent reasons for delaying presentation were lack of awareness of the cause of symptoms (41.5%), low perceived severity (27.7%) and fear of surgery intervention (26.2%). Conclusions Almost half of BC patients in our setting had a delay in presentation and 64.7% experienced a delay in diagnosis. These delays increased the likelihood of presentation with a more advanced stage of disease. Future research is required in Indonesia to explore the feasibility of evidence-based approaches to reducing delays at both levels, including educational interventions to increase awareness of BC symptoms and reducing existing complex and convoluted referral pathways for patients suspected of having cancer

Survival outcome and prognostic factors of patients with nasopharyngeal cancer in Yogyakarta, Indonesia: A hospital-based retrospective study

Purpose This study aimed to determine the survival outcome and prognostic factors of patients with nasopharyngeal cancer accessing treatment in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Methods Data on 759 patients with NPC diagnosed from 2007 to 2016 at Dr Sardjito General Hospital were included. Potential prognostic variables included sociodemographic, clinicopathology and treatment parameters. Multivariable analyses were implemented using semi-parametric Cox proportional hazards modelling and fully parametric survival analysis. Results The median time of observation was 14.39 months. In the whole cohort the median observed survival was 31.08 months. In the univariable analysis, age, education status, insurance type, BMI, ECOG index, stage and treatment strategy had an impact on overall survival (OS) (p values <0.01). Semi-parametric multivariable analyses with stage stratification showed that education status, ECOG index, and treatment modality were independent prognostic factors for OS (p values <0.05). In the fully parametric models age, education status, ECOG index, stage, and treatment modality were independent prognostic factors for OS (p values <0.05). For both multivariable analyses, all treatment strategies were associated with a reduced hazard (semi-parametric models, p values <0.05) and a better OS (parametric models, p values <0.05) compared with no treatment. Furthermore, compared with radiation alone or chemotherapy alone, a combination of chemotherapy and radiation either in a form of concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT), sequential chemotherapy and radiation, or induction chemotherapy followed by CCRT demonstrated a reduced hazard (hazard ratio/HR 0.226, 95% confidence interval/CI 0.089–0.363, and HR 0.390, 95%CI 0.260–0.519) and a better OS (time ratio/TR 3.108, 95%CI 1.274–4.942 and TR 2.531, 95%CI 1.829–3.233) (p values < 0.01). Conclusions Median OS for the cohort was low compared to those reported in both endemic and non-endemic regions. By combining the findings of multivariable analyses, we showed that age, education status, ECOG index, stage and first treatment modality were independent predictors for the OS