Background:Peripheral blood-derived inflammation-based scores such as the neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet–lymphocyte ratio (PLR) have recently been proposed as prognostic markers in solid tumours. Although evidence to support these markers as unfavourable prognostic factors is more compelling in gastrointestinal cancers, very little is known of their impact on breast cancer. We investigated the association between the NLR and PLR, and overall survival after breast cancer.Methods:Data from the University of Malaya Medical Centre Breast Cancer Registry was used. Of 2059 consecutive patients diagnosed from 2000 to 2008, we included 1435 patients with an available pre-treatment differential blood count (∼70%). Patients were stratified into quintiles of the NLR/PLR. Multivariable Cox regression was used to determine the independent prognostic significances of the NLR/PLR.Results:Compared with the first quintile of the NLR, women in quintile 5 were younger, had bigger tumours, nodal involvement, distant metastases and higher tumour grades. Higher NLR quintiles were significantly associated with poorer survival with a 5-year relative survival ratio (RSR) of 76.4% (95% CI: 69.6–82.1%) in quintile 1, 79.4% (95% CI: 74.4–83.7%) in quintile 2, 72.1% (95% CI: 66.3–77.3%) in quintile 3, 65.6% (95% CI: 59.8–70.8%) in quintile 4 and 51.1% (95% CI: 43.3–58.5%) in quintile 5. Following adjustment for demography, tumour characteristics, treatment and the PLR, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for quintile 5 vs quintile 1 was 1.50 (95% CI: 1.08–1.63); Ptrend=0.004. Results were unchanged when the NLR was analysed as a dichotomous variable using different cutoff points. Although patients in PLR quintile 5 had lower survival than in quintile 1 (5-year RSR: 53.2% (95% CI: 46.9–59.2%) vs 77.0% (95% CI: 70.9–82.2%)), this association was not significant after multivariable adjustment. However, a PLR >185 was significantly associated with poorer survival; adjusted HR: 1.25 (95% CI: 1.04–1.52).Conclusions:Both the NLR and PLR are independently associated with an increased risk of mortality in breast cancer. Their added value in the prognostication of breast cancer in clinical practice warrants investigation.

BACKGROUND: Financial toxicity negatively affects the well-being of cancer survivors. We examined the incidence, cost drivers, and factors associated with financial toxicity after cancer in an upper-middle-income country with universal health coverage. METHODS: Through the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Costs in Oncology study, 1,294 newly diagnosed patients with cancer (Ministry of Health [MOH] hospitals [n = 577], a public university hospital [n = 642], private hospitals [n = 75]) were observed in Malaysia. Cost diaries and questionnaires were used to measure incidence of financial toxicity, encompassing financial catastrophe (FC; out-of-pocket costs ≥ 30% of annual household income), medical impoverishment (decrease in household income from above the national poverty line to below that line after subtraction of cancer-related costs), and economic hardship (inability to make necessary household payments). Predictors of financial toxicity were determined using multivariable analyses. RESULTS: One fifth of patients had private health insurance. Incidence of FC at 1 year was 51% (MOH hospitals, 33%; public university hospital, 65%; private hospitals, 72%). Thirty-three percent of households were impoverished at 1 year. Economic hardship was reported by 47% of families. Risk of FC attributed to conventional medical care alone was 18% (MOH hospitals, 5%; public university hospital, 24%; private hospitals, 67%). Inclusion of expenditures on nonmedical goods and services inflated the risk of financial toxicity in public hospitals. Low-income status, type of hospital, and lack of health insurance were strong predictors of FC. CONCLUSION: Patients with cancer may not be fully protected against financial hardships, even in settings with universal health coverage. Nonmedical costs also contribute as important drivers of financial toxicity in these settings.

Background A diagnosis of cancer negatively impacts the financial wellbeing of affected individuals as well as their households. We aimed to gain an in‐depth understanding of the financial needs following diagnosis of breast cancer in a middle‐income setting with universal health coverage. Materials and Methods Twelve focus group discussions (n = 64) were conducted with women with breast cancer from two public and three private hospitals. This study specifically focused on (a) health costs, (b) nonhealth costs, (c) employment and earnings, and (d) financial assistance. Thematic analysis was used. Results Financial needs related to cancer treatment and health care varied according to the participant's socioeconomic background and type of medical insurance. Although having medical insurance alleviated cancer treatment‐related financial difficulties, limited policy coverage for cancer care and suboptimal reimbursement policies were common complaints. Nonhealth expenditures were also cited as an important source of financial distress; patients from low‐income households reported transport and parking costs as troublesome, with some struggling to afford basic necessities, whereas participants from higher‐income households mentioned hired help, special food and/or supplements and appliances as expensive needs following cancer. Needy patients had a hard time navigating through the complex system to obtain financial support. Irrespective of socioeconomic status, reductions in household income due to loss of employment and/or earnings were a major source of economic hardship. Conclusion There are many unmet financial needs following a diagnosis of (breast) cancer even in settings with universal health coverage. Health care professionals may only be able to fulfill these unmet needs through multisectoral collaborations, catalyzed by strong political will. Implications for Practice As unmet financial needs exist among patients with cancer across all socioeconomic groups, including for patients with medical insurance, financial navigation should be prioritized as an important component of cancer survivorship services, including in the low‐ and middle‐income settings. Apart from assisting survivors to understand the costs of cancer care, navigate the complex system to obtain financial assistance, or file health insurance claims, any planned patient navigation program should also provide support to deal with employment‐related challenges and navigate return to work. It is also echoed that costs for essential personal items (e.g., breast prostheses) should be covered by health insurance or subsidized by the government.

Background: Survival disparities in cancer are known to occur between public and private hospitals. We compared breast cancer presentation, treatment and survival between a public academic hospital and a private hospital in a middle-income country. Methods: The demographics, clinical characteristics, treatment and overall survival (OS) of 2767 patients with invasive breast carcinoma diagnosed between 2001 and 2011 in the public hospital were compared with 1199 patients from the private hospital. Results: Compared to patients in the private hospital, patients from the public hospital were older at presentation, and had more advanced cancer stages. They were also more likely to receive mastectomy and chemotherapy but less radiotherapy. The five-year OS in public patients was significantly lower than in private patients (71.6% vs. 86.8%). This difference was largely attributed to discrepancies in stage at diagnosis and, although to a much smaller extent, to demographic differences and treatment disparities. Even following adjustment for these factors, patients in the public hospital remained at increased risk of mortality compared to their counterparts in the private hospital (Hazard Ratio: 1.59; 95% Confidence Interval: 1.36–1.85). Conclusion: Late stage at diagnosis appears to be a major contributing factor explaining the breast cancer survival disparity between public and private patients in this middle-income setting.

Percutaneous biopsy in breast cancer has been associated with an increased risk of malignant cell seeding. However, the importance of these observations remains obscure due to lack of corroborating evidence from clinical studies. We determined whether method of biopsy is associated with breast cancer survival. This hospital registry-based cohort study included 3416 non-metastatic breast cancer patients diagnosed from 1993 to 2011 in a tertiary setting. Factors associated with biopsy methods were assessed. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to determine the independent prognostic impact of method of biopsy. Overall, 990 patients were diagnosed by core needle biopsy (CNB), 1364 by fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC), and 1062 by excision biopsy. Excision biopsy was significantly associated with more favorable tumor characteristics. Radiotherapy modified the prognostic impact of biopsy method (P interaction < .001). Following multivariable analysis, excision biopsy was consistently associated with lower risk of mortality compared to FNAC in women receiving adjuvant radiotherapy (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.81, 95%CI: 0.66–0.99), but not in those who did not receive adjuvant radiotherapy (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.87, 95%CI: 0.65–1.17). While the risk of mortality was not different between patients undergoing FNAC and CNB when radiotherapy is administered, in the absence of radiotherapy, CNB was associated with higher risk of mortality than FNAC (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.57, 95%CI: 1.16–2.12). Given that our results contradict with findings of previous clinical studies assessing the prognostic impact of method of biopsy in women with breast cancer, further studies are warranted.