Toxicity Assessment of a Phase III Study Evaluating FEC-Doc and FEC-Doc Combined with Gemcitabine as an Adjuvant Treatment for High-Risk Early Breast Cancer: the SUCCESS-A Trial.

Introduction: This paper aims to evaluate the toxicity profile of additive gemcitabine to adjuvant taxane-based chemotherapy in breast cancer patients. Methods: Patients enrolled in this open-label randomized controlled Phase III study were treated with 3 cycles of epirubicin-fluorouracil-cyclophosphamide (FEC) chemotherapy followed by 3 cycles of docetaxel with those receiving 3 cycles of FEC followed by 3 cycles of gemcitabine-docetaxel (FEC-DG). 3690 patients were evaluated according to National Cancer Institute (NCI) toxicity criteria (CTCAE). The study medications were assessed by the occurrence of grade 3-4 adverse events, dose reductions, postponements of treatment cycles and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) support. Results: No differences in neutropenia or febrile neutropenia were demonstrated. However, thrombocytopenia was significantly increased with FEC-DG treatment (2.0 vs. 0.5 %, p < 0.001), as was leukopenia (64.1 vs. 58.5 %, p < 0.001). With FEC-DG significantly more G-CSF support in cycles 4 to 6 (FEC-DG: 57.8 %, FEC-D: 36.3 %, p < 0.001) was provided. Transaminase elevation was significantly more common with FEC-DG (SGPT: 6.3 %, SGOT: 2 %), whereas neuropathy (1.2 %), arthralgia (1.6 %) and bone pain (2.6 %) were more common using FEC-D. Dose reductions > 20 % (4 vs. 2.4 %) and postponement of treatment cycles (0.9 vs. 0.4 %) were significantly more frequent in the FEC-DG arm. Eight deaths occurred during treatment in the FEC-DG arm and four in the FEC-D arm. Conclusion: The addition of gemcitabine increased hematological toxicity and was associated with more dose reductions and postponements of treatment cycles.

[Documentation Time and Effort and Associated Resources for Patients with Primary Breast Cancer from Diagnosis to End of Follow-Up - Results of a Multicentre Validation]. / Dokumentationsaufwand und verbundene Ressourcen bei Patientinnen mit einem primären Mammakarzinom - von der Primärdiagnose bis zur Abschluss der Nachsorge - Ergebnisse der multizentrischen Erhebung.

INTRODUCTION: Tumour documentation is essential for quality assurance of oncological therapies and as a source of reliable information about the in- and outpatient care. The documentation effort and the associated resource consumption were analysed for the example of breast cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The different steps in the care of patients with primary breast cancer in a standardised disease situation were defined from initial diagnosis to the end of the follow-up. After the pilot phase, a multicentre validation (n=7 centres) was performed with the support of the Federal Ministry of Health. The documentation time points were horizontally collected and analysed with regard to amount, duration and personnel expenses. RESULTS: 57% of the documentation costs are caused by the physicians. Regarding the different centres, documentation costs were calculated between € 352.82 and € 1 084.08 per patient from diagnosis to completion of aftercare. Non-certified centres had a reduced documentation effort and thus lower costs. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate the need for a reduction of the documentation effort - particularly for physicians - the most expensive profession in the health system. A quality improvement is expected from the certification with its special requirements. In this context, there is a justified demand for an adequate remuneration of the documentation effort for certified centres. Furthermore, it is necessary to reduce the number of variables for quality assurance and to define them centrally. A comprehensive multi-disciplinary documentation should be achieved. Investments in a single data set and interface enhancements of existing documentation systems should be realised.

Accuracy of radiological tumour size assessment and the risk for re-excision in a cohort of primary breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Re-operations after breast conserving surgery (BCS) are necessary, when specimen margins are not free of breast cancer cells. This study explored the accuracy of preoperative tumour size assessment and its influence on the rate of re-excisions and mastectomies. METHODS: The study included 1591 patients with invasive breast cancer, who were planned for BCS. Patient, staging and tumor characteristics were evaluated concerning their influence on re-excision and mastectomy rates. Patient and tumor characteristics comprised histopathological tumour size, HER2 status, multifocality, in situ component, grading (G), nodal status and hormone receptor (HR) status. Staging characteristics included deviation from pathological tumour size as measured by clinical examination, sonography and mammography. RESULTS: In 1316 patients (83%) sufficient treatment was possible with one operation. 275 patients (17%) had to undergo at least one further surgery as a result of positive specimen margins. In 138 patients (9%) mastectomy was ultimately necessary. In patients with a positive HER2 status, a larger tumour size, underestimation by ultrasound, an in situ component and multifocality, the risk for a re-operation was about doubled. Tumour size deviation in the mammogram or the clinical tumour size assessment did not have significant influence to the re-excision rates. CONCLUSION: Tumour size and accurate presurgical assessment of the tumour size itself are independent predictors for the need of a second surgery or even a mastectomy in patients for whom a primary BCS was planned.

Health Services Research and Health Economy - Quality Care Training in Gynaecology, with Focus On Gynaecological Oncology.

In the era of cost increases and reduced resources in the German healthcare system, the value of health services research and health economics is increasing more and more. Health services research attempts to develop concepts for the most effective ways to organise, manage, finance and deliver high-quality care and evaluates the implementation of these concepts with regard to daily routine conditions. Goals are the assessment of benefits and the economic advantages and disadvantages of new and established diagnostic methods, drugs and vaccines. Regarding these goals, it is clear that health services research goes hand in hand with health economics, which evaluates the benefits of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in relation to the costs. Both scientific fields have focus principally on gynaecology and particularly on gynaecological oncology in Germany, as can be seen by numerous publications. These present several advantages compared with clinical trials - they uncover gaps in health care, question the material, staffing and consequently the financial resources required and they allow the estimation of value and the comparison of different innovations to identify the best options for our patients.

The era of centers: the influence of establishing specialized centers on patients' choice of hospital.

PURPOSE: It is considered that establishing accredited specialized centers can serve as a marketing tool. This study investigated whether accredited specialized centers influence patients' choice of hospital. METHODS: A total of 2,389 patients was included in a questionnaire survey: 468 at the Department of Gynecology, 745 at the certified University Breast Center of Franconia, 1,000 at the University Perinatal Center of Franconia and 176 for whom classification details were lacking. RESULTS: Among the oncological patients, physicians in private practice played an important role in the choice of hospital (58.4 vs. 25.7%; P < 0.001; OR 4.058). Among obstetric patients, the primary factors were recommendations from family [odds ratio (OR) 0.495], friends (OR 0.218), and previous personal experience of the hospital (OR 0.695). For oncological patients, treatment quality (OR 2.693), availability of a center (OR 1.785), and certification (OR 3.939) were comparatively more important. For obstetric patients, friendliness (OR 0.409) and attractive accommodation (OR 0.153) were more important. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians are the most important source of recommendations for oncological patients. From the marketing point of view, intensive involvement of local private-practice physicians is necessary. The availability of certified perinatal centers does not currently play any part in patients' choice of hospital.

Changes in satisfaction in patients with gynaecological and breast malignancies: an analysis with the Socio-Economic Satisfaction and Quality of Life questionnaire.

Quality of life (QOL) is commonly assessed using health-related questionnaires. The Socio-Economic Satisfaction Quality of Life (SES-QOL) questionnaire includes specific individual coping topics, such as health, leisure activities, sexual life, occupation, financial situation, partnership situation, family situation, accommodation situation and friendship situation. This paper reports the findings of the survey with the SES-QOL with an emphasis on changes in satisfaction during the course of a disease involving a gynaecological or breast malignancy. From February 2000 to October 2002, 1030 women diagnosed with breast or gynaecological cancers were included in this study. The patients responded to the SES-QOL questionnaire as part of an interview. Metastatic disease results in more frequent reporting of dissatisfaction with health issues (63%), sexual life (24.5%) and occupation (20%), whereas patients in the adjuvant setting report deteriorating satisfaction with regard to health (41.7%), sexual life (12.2%) and occupation (11.5%). The SES-QOL reflects individual changes in different aspects of satisfaction during the course of a cancer disease. Identifying as many causing variables as possible, and offering support through an interdisciplinary approach including the physician, a social worker and a psycho-oncologist, appears necessary in order to help patients cope with cancer as a dynamic and individual process.

Risk and risk assessment for breast cancer: molecular and clinical aspects.

Chemoprevention, prophylactic surgery and intensified screening programs are options which can be offered the patients with an increased lifetime risk (p(life)) for breast cancer (BC). Estimation of p(life) includes BRCA mutation analysis and risk estimation based on individual risk factors and family history. MENDEL and BRCAPRO are models which can estimate mutation carrier status probability (p(mut)), p(life) and p(mut) can be estimated using Cyrillic3 software which incorporates BRCAPRO and MENDEL. To integrate age, hormonal factors and benign breast biopsies in risk assessment the Tyrer-Cuzick model can be used. These models support the decision pro or contra genetic analysis and improve the number of positive gene testing results. Estimations of p(life) and p(mut), based on a mathematical model, should deal with algorithms and penetrance/frequency data adequate to the population counselled. Being the main modulatory factors, reproductive/hormonal data should be incorporated like the Tyrer-Cuzick model does.

Assessment of breast cancer tumor size depends on method, histopathology and tumor size itself*.

PURPOSE: Mammography (MG), breast (BU) and axillary ultrasound (AU), and clinical examination (CE) are commonly used for clinical staging. These different methods were compared in order to assess the accuracy of clinical tumor staging (cT). METHOD: About 503 breast cancer (BC) patients were prospectively measured by MG, ultrasound and clinical examination. Pearson's correlation to pathological tumor size (pT) was tested and the deviation of MG, BU and CE to pT was analyzed in subgroups defined by pT, grading (G), estrogen receptor (ER), progesteron receptor (PR), proliferation (MIB-1) and HER2/neu. Association of AU to pN was examined by chi(2)-test. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) were used to test the prediction of a pT > 2 cm. RESULTS: Mammography correlated best with pT (r = 0.752). Mammography (mean (MG) = 2.17 cm) overestimated tumors in size (mean (pT) = 2.04 cm) rather than ultrasound (mean (BU) = 1.86 cm) and clinical examination (mean (cT) = 1.70 cm). pT of invasive ductal BC could be estimated significantly better than pT of invasive lobular BC. Smaller tumors were better to assess than larger ones. Tumors with a grading G1 were easier to estimate than tumors with G2/3. Best predictor of a pT > 2 cm was the mammography with an area under the curve of 0.876. The combination of all three modalities by linear regression performed even better with an AUC of 0.906. CONCLUSIONS: The dimension of invasive ductal carcinomas, small and low grading tumors is significantly better to estimate. Concerning treatment decisions, we propose a combination of all three modalities, as the best predictive value was seen for the complementary use of mammography, ultrasound and clinical examination.