Trends in cancer incidence by socioeconomic deprivation in Germany in 2007 to 2018: An ecological registry-based study.

Age-standardized cancer incidence has decreased over the last years for many cancer sites in developed countries. Whether these trends led to narrowing or widening socioeconomic inequalities in cancer incidence is unknown. Using cancer registry data covering 48 million inhabitants in Germany, the ecological association between age-standardized total and site specific (colorectal, lung, prostate and breast) cancer incidence in 2007 to 2018 and a deprivation index on district level (aggregated to quintiles) was investigated. Incidence in the most and least deprived districts were compared using Poisson models. Average annual percentage changes (AAPCs) and differences in AAPCs between deprivation quintiles were assessed using Joinpoint regression analyses. Age-standardized incidence decreased strongly between 2007 and 2018 for total cancer and all cancer sites (except female lung cancer), irrespective of the level of deprivation. However, differences in the magnitude of trends across deprivation quintiles resulted in increasing inequalities over time for total cancer, colorectal and lung cancer. For total cancer, the incidence rate ratio between the most and least deprived quintile increased from 1.07 (95% confidence interval: 1.01-1.12) to 1.23 (1.12-1.32) in men and from 1.07 (1.01-1.13) to 1.20 (1.14-1.26) in women. Largest inequalities were observed for lung cancer with 82% (men) and 88% (women) higher incidence in the most vs the least deprived regions in 2018. The observed increase in inequalities in cancer incidence is in alignment with trends in inequalities in risk factor prevalence and partly utilization of screening. Intervention programs targeted at socioeconomically deprived and urban regions are highly needed.

Routine practice data of three cancer entities: Comparison among cancer registry and health insurance data.

INTRODUCTION: Claims data and cancer registry data are valuable secondary data sources for addressing health service research questions. This study provides a thorough insight into the comparability of data from health insurance companies and cancer registries in Germany regarding breast, prostate, and lung cancer patients and their treatment. METHODS: For this study claims data of the InGef database and data of the Cancer Registry of Rhineland-Palatinate were used to identify patients living in Rhineland-Palatinate with an incident breast, prostate, or lung cancer diagnosis between Jan. 1, 2018 and Dec. 31, 2019. Both datasets were compared for patient and tumour characteristics as well as treatment strategy. For the descriptive analysis of tumour localisation and treatment all patients were followed up for a maximum of two years. RESULTS: A total of 1,470 incident cancer cases were identified in the InGef database and 1,694 in the Cancer Registry. Data on sex, age, and tumour localisation matched well for all cancer entities in the cohorts. Data for early UICC stages I+II varied between the cohorts for prostate cancer (84% InGef, 66% Cancer Registry) and lung cancer (29% InGef, 20% Cancer Registry). Larger deviations were found for antihormonal treatment (breast 54% vs. 44%, prostate 32% vs. 18%). Significant differences were found for surgery (breast and lung) and radiation (breast and prostate), respectively. DISCUSSION: Age at diagnosis, tumour localisation, and treatment for breast cancer was well documented in both databases. Tumour-specific deviations were observed for tumour localisations (lung cancer), UICC stage (prostate and lung cancer) and treatment options. CONCLUSION: Both databases show very good completeness across cancer entities, but at the same time have minor limitations where they could readily complement each other. Individual linkage of claims and registry data could be an important step to improve oncological studies with routine practice data and to overcome the limitations identified.

Comparison between open and laparoscopic technique in the management of perforated gastroduodenal ulcers.

GOALS: The aim of this study was to evaluate our results of laparoscopic treatment of perforated gastroduodenal ulcers during a 5-year period and to compare the outcome of open and laparoscopic surgery. BACKGROUND: The value of laparoscopic treatment of gastroduodenal ulcers is still controversially debated because its superiority to conventional open surgery has not been established. STUDY: From January 1996 to December 2001, 24 patients were treated laparoscopically and 31 patients underwent conventional open suture repair. The results of these patients were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: There were 55 patients with a mean age of 55 years (range 18-92 years) who were eligible for the study. Patients with laparoscopic repair had a lower mean ASA score (2 vs. 2.9; P = 0.02) and a less severe Mannheimer peritonitis index (16.5 vs. 21; P = 0.00001) compared with patients with open repair. Three patients who were begun by the laparoscopic approach had to be converted to open surgery (12.5%). Three patients who underwent open repair died postoperatively (5.5%). There was no difference between treatment groups regarding operative time, morbidity, or postoperative hospital stay. The laparoscopic group required significantly fewer analgesics postoperatively (2.2 vs. 4 dosages; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic treatment of perforated gastroduodenal ulcers is an effective treatment option and should be considered in suited patients for the initial approach.