Do T1a breast cancers profit from adjuvant systemic therapy? A multicenter retrospective cohort study of 325 T1a-patients.

UNLABELLED: Small tumor size (≤5 mm, T1a) carries an excellent prognosis. Controversy exists over the extent of the variety of treatment approaches. We therefore explored the effect of adjuvant systemic therapy (AST) on recurrence free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OAS) for the group of T1a-tumors. METHODS: The multicenter study population included 9625 early breast cancer patients, diagnosed between 1992 and 2008. 5196 patients were T1 (54.0 %) and 325 of these patients (3.4 %) were T1a. RESULTS: Compared to patients with AST RFS and OAS were significantly worse for patients who did not receive AST (RFS: p = 0.001; OAS: p = 0.021). Even N0-T1a-patients (n = 279) significantly profited from AST (RFS: p = 0.001; OAS: p = 0.006). Patients with at least one poor prognostic factor (HR-, HER2+, N1 or G3) without AST also showed a significantly worse outcome (RFS: p = 0.026; OAS: p = 0.024) compared to pT1a-patients with AST. Consensus guidelines state that the prognosis of patients with T1a that are N0 is uncertain even if HER2 is amplified or overexpressed. In our study nodal-negative (N0) T1a-patients (n = 279) without AST showed a significantly worse RFS (p = 0.001), and a significantly worse OAS (p = 0.006) compared to those patients with AST. In multivariate analysis even after adjusting by age, grading, hormonal receptor status, HER2/neu-status and nodal status T1a-patients without AST were associated with a significantly worse RFS resp. OAS compared to patient with AST (RFS: p = 0.002; OAS: p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: There is an association between AST and improved RFS or OAS for breast cancer patients with T1a tumors.

Gender-Related Differences in Patients Presenting with Suspected Acute Coronary Syndromes: Clinical Presentation, Biomarkers and Diagnosis.

OBJECTIVES: Gender differences in patients presenting with suspected acute coronary syndromes (ACS) have not yet been fully characterized. The aim of this study was to assess gender-related disparities in clinical profiles, biomarkers and diagnoses of patients with suspected ACS. METHODS: This single-centre, prospective cohort study included 377 consecutive patients presenting with suspected ACS to the emergency department. Suspected ACS was defined as a request for conventional troponin T (c-cTnT) measurements on clinical grounds. RESULTS: Women were older than men (p = 0.004), and had a lower prevalence of known coronary artery and peripheral vascular disease (p < 0.05). c-cTnT was positive in 8% of female and in 14% of male patients (p = 0.16), TIMI risk score and cardiac biomarkers including c-cTnT, hs-cTnT, myoglobin, creatine kinase, N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, myeloid-related protein 8/14 and pregnancy-associated plasma protein A were lower in women (p < 0.05). Women were less frequently diagnosed with ACS (30 vs. 51%), and were not referred for urgent coronary angiography as often as men (p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, female gender was associated with a lower referral for coronary angiography (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23-0.78, p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with suspected ACS, women presented with different biomarker profiles, and were less often diagnosed with ACS and referred to coronary angiography.

The impact of adjuvant radiotherapy on the survival of primary breast cancer patients: a retrospective multicenter cohort study of 8935 subjects.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy (RT) is proven to be an important backbone for adjuvant therapy in randomized, controlled trials, but it is unclear if these effects are provable in a daily routine cohort of breast cancer patients. This study sought to answer the following questions in a daily routine cohort of breast cancer patients: 1. Does guideline-adherent RT improve primary breast cancer patient survival? 2. Is breast-conserving surgery (BCS) followed by RT equal to a mastectomy (MA) with regard to outcome parameters? 3. Does adjuvant RT compensate for an incomplete tumor resection (R1)? PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this retrospective, multicenter cohort study, we investigated data from 8935 primary breast cancer patients recruited from 17 participating certified breast cancer centers in Germany between 1992 and 2008. Guideline adherence based on internationally validated guidelines. RESULTS: The patients who received guideline-adherent RT for primary breast cancer were associated with significantly improved survival parameters [recurrence-free survival (RFS): P < 0.001; overall survival (OS): P < 0.001] compared with patients who did not receive guideline-adherent adjuvant RT. Furthermore, the results demonstrated that there were no significant differences in RFS and OS between BCS followed by RT and MA [RFS: P = 0.293; OS: P = 0.104]. Adjuvant RT did not improve the outcome of patients receiving nonguideline-adherent incomplete tumor resection via BCS (R1); these patients showed a significantly impaired RFS [P < 0.001] and OS [P < 0.001] compared with patients who underwent guideline-adherent complete tumor resection via BCS (R0). In addition, non-guideline-adherent RT after MA (overtherapy) did not significantly influence survival [RFS: P = 0.838; OS: P = 0.613]. CONCLUSION: Our study confirms the importance of guideline-adherent adjuvant RT. It shows highly significant associations between RFS or OS and guideline adherent RT. Nevertheless, inadequate (R1-) surgical resection in a daily routine cohort of patients increases the risk of local recurrence and appears not to be compensated by the following RT.

An internally and externally validated prognostic score for metastatic breast cancer: analysis of 2269 patients.

BACKGROUND: The prognosis of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is extremely heterogeneous. Although patients with MBC will uniformly die to their disease, survival may range from a few months to several years. This underscores the importance of defining prognostic factors to develop risk-adopted treatment strategies. Our aim has been to use simple measures to judge a patient's prognosis when metastatic disease is diagnosed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 2269 patients from four clinical cancer registries. The prognostic score was calculated from the regression coefficients found in the Cox regression analysis. Based on the score, patients were classified into high-, intermediate-, and low-risk groups. Bootstrapping and time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curves were used for internal validation. Two independent datasets were used for external validation. RESULTS: Metastatic-free interval, localization of metastases, and hormone receptor status were identified as significant prognostic factors in the multivariate analysis. The three prognostic groups showed highly significant differences regarding overall survival from the time of metastasis [intermediate compared with low risk: hazard ratio (HR) 1.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36-2.27, P < 0.001; high compared with low risk: HR 3.54, 95% CI 2.81-4.45, P < 0.001). The median overall survival in these three groups were 61, 38, and 22 months, respectively. The external validation showed congruent results. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a prognostic score, based on routine parameters easily accessible in daily clinical care. Although major progress has been made, the optimal therapeutic management of the individual patient is still unknown. Besides elaborative molecular classification of tumors, simple clinical measures such as our model may be helpful to further individualize optimal breast cancer care.

Metastatic breast cancer: are we treating the same patients as in the past?

BACKGROUND: Early detection and improved (neo)-adjuvant treatment has extended survival of breast cancer over the last decades. It remains controversial whether a survival benefit is achieved once metastases have occurred. This study investigates survival trends in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) looking at the distribution of prognostic factors and the time period of the diagnosis of the primary and metastatic disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, 1635 patients, diagnosed with MBC and treated at three German cancer centers, were included. For the survival analysis, patients were grouped into three time periods [1980-1994 (a), 1995-1999 (b) and 2000-2009 (c)], which were chosen according to the availability of new antineoplastic drugs for the treatment of MBC. Additionally, patients were divided into three risk groups using the simultaneously published prognostic score. RESULTS: The analysis of overall survival according to the date of primary diagnosis demonstrated a significant decline compared with the reference (a): (a versus b) hazard ratio (HR) = 1.37; P < 0.001; (a versus c) HR = 2.45; P < 0.001. Considering the time of first occurrence of metastasis, survival remains unchanged over the three periods (a versus b): HR = 0.94 P = 0.436; (a versus c): HR = 0.95; P = 0.435. However, a significant shift towards more unfavorable risk factors was seen. CONCLUSIONS: Although survival in MBC remains unchanged over time, patients developing metastatic disease have a more aggressive disease that is presumably compensated by more effective treatment. This alteration of tumor biology in MBC may be explained by a negative selection of patients with adverse risk profiles due to the advantages of the adjuvant therapy.

Comparing the outcome between multicentric and multifocal breast cancer: what is the impact on survival, and is there a role for guideline-adherent adjuvant therapy? A retrospective multicenter cohort study of 8,935 patients.

Multifocal (MF) and multicentric (MC) breast cancers have been comprehensively studied, and their outcomes have been compared with unifocal (UF) tumors. We attempted to answer the following questions: (1) Does MF/MC presentation influence the outcome concerning BC mortality?, (2) Is there an impact of guideline-adherent adjuvant treatment in these BC subtypes?, and (3)What is the influence of guideline violations concerning surgery (breast-conserving surgery versus mastectomy) on the survival of MF/MC BC patients? Between 1992 and 2008, we retrospectively analyzed 8,935 breast cancer patients from 17 participating breast cancer centers within the BRENDA study group. Of 8,935 breast cancer patients, 7,073 (79.2 %) had UF tumors, 1,398 (15.6 %) had MF tumors, and 464 (5.2 %) had MC tumors. RFS was significantly worse for MF/MC BC patients compared to patients with UF tumors (MF p = 0.007; MC p = 0.019). OAS was significantly worse for MC patients but not for MF patients compared to patients with UF tumors (MF p = 0.321; MC p = 0.001). Guideline adherence was significantly lower in patients with MF (n = 580; 41.5 %) and MC (n = 204; 44.0 %) compared to patients with UF (n = 3,871; 54.7 %) (p < 0.001) tumors. Guideline violations were associated with a highly significant deterioration in survival throughout all subgroups except for MC, with respect to RFS and OAS. For 100 %-guideline-adherent patients, we could not find any significant differences in RFS and OAS after adjusting by nodal status, grade, and tumor size. Furthermore, we could not find any significant differences in RFS and OAS in patients with MF or MC stratified by breast-conserving therapy (BCT lumpectomy and radiation therapy) and mastectomy. There is a strong association between improved RFS and OAS in patients with MF/MZ BC. There are no significant differences in RFS and OAS for patients with breast-conserving therapy or mastectomy.

High estrogen receptor expression in early breast cancer: chemotherapy needed to improve RFS?

One of the most controversial questions in early breast cancer treatment is the need of chemotherapy in patients with estrogen receptor positive disease. Therefore, we analyzed a group of patients with high estrogen receptor (ER) expression to scrutinize the role of chemotherapy in this situation. To gauge the effect of chemotherapy on recurrence free survival (RFS) three treatment modalities were compared: endocrine treatment only, chemoendocrine treatment, and chemotherapy. 3,971 breast cancer patients whose treatment modalities as well as ER level were known, were included in this retrospective analysis. Their level of ER expression was documented as immunoreactive score (IRS). A high ER group was defined as ER IRS ≥ 9; primary endpoint was RFS. RFS was associated with ER, with the best outcome for strong and the worst result for negative expression. Adjusted to Nottingham prognostic index (NPI), RFS did not differ between the treatment cohorts of endocrine treatment and chemoendocrine treatment (P = 0.828) in the high ER group. Patients with chemotherapy alone fared significantly worse (P = 0.003). Even in high risk patients (according to NPI) the chemoendocrine and the endocrine treatment only groups did not differ significantly (HR = 1.15; 95% CI (0.56-2.34), P = 0.709). Omission of endocrine treatment led to significantly worse outcome (P = 0.013). In conclusion, RFS was significantly longer in patients with high ER expression than with weak or no ER expression. In the high expression group, there was no significant difference in RFS between endocrine treatment only and chemoendocrine therapy-even in high risk patients, for whom chemoendocrine treatment is routinely indicated. It seems insufficient for high ER patients to only consider tumor size, nodal status, and grading in order to decide which patient will benefit from adding chemotherapy to endocrine treatment.

[Performance of record linkage for cancer registry data linked with mammography screening data]. / Zur Leistungsfähigkeit des Record-Linkage zwischen epidemiologischen Krebsregistern und dem Mammographie-Screening.

The evaluation of the German Mammography Screening Program requires record linkage with data from cancer registries in order to measure the number of false-negative mammograms and interval cancers. This study aims at evaluating the performance of the established linkage method based on identifiers encrypted by the standard procedure of the German cancer registries. In addition, the results are compared with an alternative method based on plain text identifiers. A total of 16,572 records from the Bremen Mammography Screening Pilot Study were linked with data from the Bremen Cancer Registry. Based on a gold standard set of matching record pairs, homonym and synonym errors were determined. Given the customary threshold value in cancer registries, the plain text method showed a lower rate of synonym errors (2.1-5.1%) and a lower rate of homonym errors (0.01-0.15%). As 10.4 million women are invited to take part biennially in screening, the corresponding figures would be 3,237 homonym errors for the standard procedure and 294 using the plain text method provided equivalent conditions. The 11-fold increase in the homonym error rate documents the trade-off for better data protection using encrypted data.

Quality monitoring, standardized documentation and management with a computerized system in oncology.

Within the last years the prerequisite was prepared to develop a computerized tumor--patient documentation system including quality monitoring and oncological therapy recommendations for every day use. In medicine today, there is an increasing need for quality oriented low cost and transparent management--what is especially true in the field of oncology. The German Federal Authority of Health demands the documentation of all tumor disorders for the establishment of an cancer registry. For these reasons our study group established the program "OncoDoc" in cooperation with the laboratory for Artificial Intelligence of the University Bremen.

A prognostic computer model to predict individual outcome in interventional cardiology. The INTERVENT Project.

It is not yet possible to predict an individual's outcome from percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty or alternative/adjunctive coronary interventional techniques. The purpose of the INTERVENT project is to redefine complications associated with coronary interventions, to set up a prognostic computer model to predict individual outcome and to compare the results to those of conventional statistical techniques. 2500 data items were analysed in 455 consecutive patients (mean age: 61.1 +/- 8.3 years; range 33-84 years; 80.4% male, 16.7% unstable angina, 5.1%/10.1% acute/subacute myocardial infarction) undergoing coronary interventions at three university centres. In-lab/out-of-lab complication rates were 0.4%/0.9% (death), 1.8%/0.2% (abrupt vessel closure with myocardial infarction) and 5.5%/4.0% (haemodynamic complications). Computer algorithms derived by applying techniques from artificial intelligence were able (1) to reduce the set of possible relevant risk factors from 2500 to about 40, (2) to predict individual risk with an accuracy of > 95% and (3) to explain the structural relationship between outcome and risk factors. Patient data from two centres were used to construct and test the algorithm. Data from a third centre were used to evaluate the algorithm. The most important predictors-were acute myocardial infarction, heart failure (NYHA class > II), unstable angina, complex lesions, high low density lipoprotein cholesterol and duration of coronary heart disease. Neither age nor gender impaired the percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty results in acute ischaemic syndromes; however, for stable angina, procedural risk increased with age. There was little risk from primary percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction in patients with NYHA heart failure classes I-II; however, the risk was high for patients in NYHA classes > II, either with or without additional thrombolysis. Alternative/adjunctive intervention techniques were no predictors for in-lab-, but were predictors for post-procedural complications.

A prognostic computer model to individually predict post-procedural complications in interventional cardiology: the INTERVENT Project.

AIMS: The purpose of this part of the INTERVENT project was (1) to redefine and individually predict post-procedural complications associated with coronary interventions, including alternative/adjunctive techniques to PTCA and (2) to employ the prognostic INTERVENT computer model to clarify the structural relationship between (pre)-procedural risk factors and post-procedural outcome. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a multicentre study, 2500 data items of 455 consecutive patients (mean age: 61.1+/-8.3 years: 33-84 years) undergoing coronary interventions at three university centres were analysed. 80.4% of the patients were male, 16.7% had unstable angina, and 5.1%/10.1% acute/subacute myocardial infarction. There were multiple or multivessel stenoses in 16.0%, vessel bending >90 degrees in 14.5%, irregular vessel contours in 65.0%, moderate calcifications in 20.9%, moderate/severe vessel tortuosity in 53.2% and a diameter stenosis of 90%-99% in 44.4% of cases. The in-lab (out-of-lab) complications were: 0.4% (0.9%) death, 1.8% (0.2%) abrupt vessel closure with myocardial infarction and 5.5% (4.0) haemodynamic disorders. CONCLUSION: Computer algorithms derived from artificial intelligence were able to predict the individual risk of these post-procedural complications with an accuracy of >95% and to explain the structural relationship between risk factors and post-procedural complications. The most important prognostic factors were: heart failure (NYHA class), use of adjunctive/alternative techniques (rotablation, atherectomy, laser), acute coronary ischaemia, pre-existent cardiac medication, stenosis length, stenosis morphology (calcification), gender, age, amount of contrast agent and smoker status. Pre-medication with aspirin or other cardiac medication had a beneficial effect. Techniques, such as laser angioplasty or atherectomy were predictors for post-procedural complications. Single predictors alone were not able to describe the individual outcome completely.