No evidence to support the impact of migration background on treatment response rates and cancer survival: a retrospective matched-pair analysis in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Immigration has taken the central stage in world politics, especially in the developed countries like Germany, where the continuous flow of immigrants has been well documented since 1960s. Strikingly, emerging data suggest that migrant patients have a poorer response to the treatment and lower survival rates in their new host country, raising concerns about health disparities. Herein, we present our investigation on the treatment response rate and cancer survival in German patients with and without an immigrant background that were treated at our comprehensive cancer center in Germany. METHODS: Initially, we considered 8162 cancer patients treated at the Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO), University Hospital Bonn, Germany (April 2002-December 2015) for matched-pair analysis. Subsequently, the German patients with a migration background and those from the native German population were manually identified and catalogued using a highly specific name-based algorithm. The clinical parameters such as demographic characteristics, tumor characteristics, defined staging criteria, and primary therapy were further adjusted. Using these stringent criteria, a total of 422 patients (n = 211, Germans with migration background; n = 211, native German population) were screened to compare for the treatment response and survival rates (i.e., 5-year overall survival, progression-free survival, and time to progression). RESULTS: Compared to the cohort with migration background, the cohort without migration background was slightly older (54.9 vs. 57.9 years) while having the same sex distribution (54.5% vs. 55.0% female) and longer follow-up time (36.9 vs. 42.6 months). We did not find significant differences in cancer survival (5-year overall survival, P = 0.771) and the response rates (Overall Remission Rate; McNemar's test, P = 0.346) between both collectives. CONCLUSION: Contrary to prior reports, we found no significant differences in cancer survival between German patients with immigrant background and native German patients. Nevertheless, the advanced treatment protocols implemented at our comprehensive cancer center may possibly account for the low variance in outcome. To conduct similar studies with a broader perspective, we propose that certain risk factors (country-of-origin-specific infections, dietary habits, epigenetics for chronic diseases etc.) should be considered, specially in the future studies that will recruit new arrivals from the 2015 German refugee crisis.

A matched-pair analysis on survival and response rates between German and non-German cancer patients treated at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

BACKGROUND: Research shows disparities in cancer outcomes by ethnicity or socio-economic status. Therefore, it is the aim of our study to perform a matched-pair analysis which compares the outcome of German and non-German (in the following described as 'foreign') cancer patients being treated at the Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO) Köln Bonn at the University Hospital of Bonn between January 2010 and June 2016. METHODS: During this time, 6314 well-documented patients received a diagnosis of cancer. Out of these patients, 219 patients with foreign nationality could be matched to German patients based on diagnostic and demographic criteria and were included in the study. All of these 438 patients were well characterized concerning survival data (Overall survival, Progression-free survival and Time to progression) and response to treatment. RESULTS: No significant differences regarding the patients' survival and response rates were seen when all German and foreign patients were compared. A subgroup analysis of German and foreign patients with head and neck cancer revealed a significantly longer progression-free survival for the German patients. Differences in response to treatment could not be found in this subgroup analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, no major differences in survival and response rates of German and foreign cancer patients were revealed in this study. Nevertheless, the differences in progression-free survival, which could be found in the subgroup analysis of patients with head and neck cancer, should lead to further research, especially evaluating the role of infectious diseases like human papillomavirus (HPV) and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) on carcinogenesis and disease progression.

HIPEC ROC I: a phase I study of cisplatin administered as hyperthermic intraoperative intraperitoneal chemoperfusion followed by postoperative intravenous platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer.

This phase I study tested the safety, feasibility, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of cisplatin administered as hyperthermic intraoperative intraperitoneal chemoperfusion (HIPEC) in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) undergoing secondary cytoreductive surgery followed by postoperative platinum-based intravenous chemotherapy. Twelve patients with operable, recurrent platinum-sensitive EOC (recurrence ≥6 months after first-line therapy) were included according to the classical 3+3 dose-escalation design at three dose levels-60, 80 and 100 mg/m(2). After surgical cytoreduction, a single dose of cisplatin was administered via HIPEC for 90 min at 41-43°C. Postoperatively, all patients were treated with standard intravenous platinum-based combination chemotherapy. One of six patients experienced a dose-limiting toxicity (grade 3 renal toxicity) at a dose of 100 mg/m(2). The remaining five patients treated with 100 mg/m(2) tolerated their treatment well. The recommended phase II dose was established at 100 mg/m(2). The mean peritoneal-to-plasma AUC ratio was 19·5 at the highest dose level. Cisplatin-induced DNA adducts were confirmed in tumor samples. Common postoperative grade 1-3 toxicities included fatigue, postoperative pain, nausea, and surgical site infection. The ability to administer standard intravenous platinum-based chemotherapy after HIPEC was uncompromised. Cisplatin administered as HIPEC at a dose of 100 mg/m(2) has an acceptable safety profile in selected patients undergoing secondary cytoreductive surgery for platinum-sensitive recurrent EOC. Favorable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of HIPEC with cisplatin were confirmed at all dose levels, especially at 100 mg/m(2). The results are encouraging to determine the efficacy of HIPEC as a complementary treatment in patients with EOC.

Preoperative MRI in patients with locoregional recurrent breast cancer: influence on treatment modalities.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the impact of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) on management in patients with locoregional recurrent breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-three patients who underwent treatment for locoregional relapse of breast cancer from 2008 through 2012 were analyzed. All patients underwent both conventional surveillance by mammography, ultrasound, and clinical examination and subsequent bilateral breast MRI. RESULTS: Preoperative MRI detected additional tumor foci in 15 of 43 patients (34.9%). In two cases (4.7%), the diagnosis of occult sites had no influence on the subsequent treatment. Two patients (4.7%) had an unfavorable change of surgical management with unnecessary additional resection of benign foci. Eleven patients benefited from the MRI scan detecting malignant occult lesions (25.6%) resulting in either additional surgical resection or radiotherapy. Patient and tumor characteristics in primary disease did not differ significantly between patients with a favorable impact on surgical management and patients who experienced either no benefit or even disadvantage from MRI scan. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative breast MRI has a strong impact on the management of locoregional recurrent breast cancer. This study demonstrates that breast MRI is a powerful supplement to conventional diagnostic work-up, both during follow-up or preoperative treatment planning in recurrent disease.