Treatment in Certified Breast Cancer Centers Improves Chances of Survival of Patients with Breast Cancer: Evidence Based on Health Care Data from the WiZen Study.

Introduction: Certified breast cancer centers offer specific quality standards in terms of their structure, diagnostic and treatment approaches with regards to breast surgery, drug-based cancer therapy, radiotherapy, and psychosocial support. Such centers aim to improve treatment outcomes of breast cancer patients. The question investigated here was whether patients with primary breast cancer have a longer overall survival if they are treated in a certified breast cancer center compared to treatment outside these centers. Methods: We used patient-specific data (demographics, diagnoses, treatments) obtained from data held by mandatory health insurance companies ( gesetzliche Krankenversicherung , GKV) and clinical cancer registries (KKR) for the period 2009-2017 as well as hospital characteristics recorded in standardized quality reports. Using multivariable Cox regression analysis, we investigated differences in survival between patients treated in hospitals certified as breast cancers centers by the German Cancer Society (DKG) and patients treated in hospitals which had not been certified by the DKG. Results: The sample population consisted of 143720 (GKV data) and 59780 (KKR data) patients with breast cancer, who were treated in 1010 hospitals across Germany (280 DKG-certified, 730 not DKG-certified). 63.5% (GKV data) and 66.7% (KKR data) of patients, respectively, were treated in DKG-certified breast cancer centers. Cox regression analysis for overall survival which included patient and hospital characteristics found a significantly lower mortality risk for patients treated in DKG-certified breast cancer centers (GKV data: HR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.74-0.81; KKR data: HR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.85-0.92). This result remained stable even after several sensitivity analyses including stratified estimates for subgroups of patients and hospitals. The effect was even more pronounced for recurrence-free survival (KKR data: HR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.74-0.82). Conclusions: Patients who are treated by an interdisciplinary team in a DKG-certified breast cancer had clear and statistically significantly better survival rates. Certification is therefore an effective means of improving the quality of care, and more patients should be treated in certified breast cancer centers.

When Should Lymphadenectomy Be Performed in Non-Metastatic Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors? A Population-Based Analysis of the German Clinical Cancer Registry Group.

BACKGROUND: Patient selection for lymphadenectomy remains a controversial aspect in the treatment of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs), given the growing importance of parenchyma-sparing resections and minimally invasive procedures. METHODS: This population-based analysis was derived from the German Cancer Registry Group during the period from 2000 to 2021. Patients with upfront resected non-functional non-metastatic pNETs were included. RESULTS: Out of 5520 patients with pNET, 1006 patients met the inclusion criteria. Fifty-three percent of the patients were male. The median age was 64 ± 17 years. G1, G2, and G3 pNETs were found in 57%, 37%, and 7% of the patients, respectively. Lymph node metastasis (LNM) was present in 253 (24%) of all patients. LNM was an independent prognostic factor (HR 1.79, CI 95% 1.21-2.64, p = 0.001) for disease-free survival (DFS). The 3-, 5-, and 10-year disease-free survival in nodal negative tumors compared to nodal positive was 82% vs. 53%, 75% vs. 38%, and 48% vs. 16%. LNM was present in 5% of T1 tumors, 25% of T2 tumors, and 49% of T3-T4 tumors. In T1 tumors, G1 was the most predominant tumor grade (80%). However, in T2 tumors, G2 and G3 represented 44% and 5% of all tumors. LNM was associated with tumors located in the pancreatic head (p < 0.001), positive resection margin (p < 0.001), tumors larger than 2 cm (p < 0.001), and higher tumor grade (p < 0.001). The multivariable analysis showed that tumor size, tumor grade, and location were independent prognostic factors associated with LNM that could potentially be used to predict LNM preoperatively. CONCLUSION: LNM is an independent negative prognostic factor for DFS in pNETs. Due to the low incidence of LNM in T1 tumors (5%), parenchyma-sparing surgery seems oncologically adequate in small G1 pNETs, while regional lymphadenectomy should be recommended in T2 or G2/G3 pNETs.

Treatment of Colorectal Cancer in Certified Centers: Results of a Large German Registry Study Focusing on Long-Term Survival.

(1) Background: The WiZen study is the largest study so far to analyze the effect of the certification of designated cancer centers on survival in Germany. This certification program is provided by the German Cancer Society (GCS) and represents one of the largest oncologic certification programs worldwide. Currently, about 50% of colorectal cancer patients in Germany are treated in certified centers. (2) Methods: All analyses are based on population-based clinical cancer registry data of 47.440 colorectal cancer (ICD-10-GM C18/C20) patients treated between 2009 and 2017. The primary outcome was 5-year overall survival (OAS) after treatment at certified cancer centers compared to treatment at other hospitals; the secondary endpoint was recurrence-free survival. Statistical methods included Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariable Cox regression. (3) Results: Treatment at certified hospitals was associated with significant advantages concerning 5-year overall survival (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.89, 0.96, adjusted for a broad range of confounders) for colon cancer patients. Concentrating on UICC stage I-III patients, for whom curative treatment is possible, the survival benefit was even larger (colon cancer: HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84, 0.94; rectum cancer: HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84, 0.97). (4) Conclusions: These results encourage future efforts for further implementation of the certification program. Patients with colorectal cancer should preferably be directed to certified centers.

Initial Cancer Treatment in Certified Versus Non-Certified Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: According to the National Cancer Plan in Germany, all cancer patients should receive high-quality care in accordance with evidence-based treatment guidelines. Certification programs were established for this purpose but have not yet been comprehensively evaluated. METHODS: In the WiZen project, which was supported by the Innovation Fund (supported project number 01VSF17020), controlled cohort studies were performed to investigate whether initial treatment in hospitals with or without a certificate from the German Cancer Society was associated with a difference in overall survival (primary endpoint) in patients with cancer of the colon, rectum, lung, pancreas, breast, cervix, prostate, endometrium, and ovary, head and neck cancer, and neuro-oncological tumors. The studies were based on nationwide data from adult insurees of the AOK statutory health insurance carrier for the years 2009-2017. RESULTS: The majority of patients with all entities except breast cancer received their initial treatment in non-certified hospitals. Initial treatment in a certified hospital was found to be beneficial in terms of overall survival for all cancer entities, even after extensive adjustment for patient- and hospital-related confounders. The hazard ratio (HR) ranged from 0.97 (95% CI: [0.94; 1.00]) for lung cancer to 0.77 [0.74; 0.81] for breast cancer, corresponding to an absolute risk reduction (ARR) for overall survival of 0.62 months for lung cancer to 4.61 months for cervical cancer. CONCLUSION: The WiZen study shows for the entities studied that initial cancer treatment in a certified center is associated with lower mortality. Despite the recommendations of the National Cancer Plan, however, more than 40% of all cancer patients still receive their initial treatment in a non-certified hospital. The preferential provision of initial care in certified hospitals would be likely to improve overall survival. Although the study design does not permit any conclusion with regard to causality, the findings seem robust considering that a control group was used, confounders were taken into account, and the study population was of large size.

Specifics of Young Gastric Cancer Patients: A Population-Based Analysis of 46,110 Patients with Gastric Cancer from the German Clinical Cancer Registry Group.

Introduction: 2−8% of all gastric cancer occurs at a younger age, also known as early-onset gastric cancer (EOGC). The aim of the present work was to use clinical registry data to classify and characterize the young cohort of patients with gastric cancer more precisely. Methods: German Cancer Registry Group of the Society of German Tumor Centers­Network for Care, Quality and Research in Oncology (ADT)was queried for patients with gastric cancer from 2000−2016. An approach that stratified relative distributions of histological subtypes of gastric adenocarcinoma according to age percentiles was used to define and characterize EOGC. Demographics, tumor characteristics, treatment and survival were analyzed. Results: A total of 46,110 patients were included. Comparison of different groups of age with incidences of histological subtypes showed that incidence of signet ring cell carcinoma (SRCC) increased with decreasing age and exceeded pooled incidences of diffuse and intestinal type tumors in the youngest 20% of patients. We selected this group with median age of 53 as EOGC. The proportion of female patients was lower in EOGC than that of elderly patients (43% versus 45%; p < 0.001). EOGC presented more advanced and undifferentiated tumors with G3/4 stages in 77% versus 62%, T3/4 stages in 51% versus 48%, nodal positive tumors in 57% versus 53% and metastasis in 35% versus 30% (p < 0.001) and received less curative treatment (42% versus 52%; p < 0.001). Survival of EOGC was significantly better (five-years survival: 44% versus 31% (p < 0.0001), with age as independent predictor of better survival (HR 0.61; p < 0.0001). Conclusion: With this population-based registry study we were able to objectively define a cohort of patients referred to as EOGC. Despite more aggressive/advanced tumors and less curative treatment, survival was significantly better compared to elderly patients, and age was identified as an independent predictor for better survival.

Is treatment in certified cancer centers related to better survival in patients with pancreatic cancer? Evidence from a large German cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of cancer patients in certified cancer centers, that meet specific quality standards in term of structures and procedures of medical care, is a national treatment goal in Germany. However, convincing evidence that treatment in certified cancer centers is associated with better outcomes in patients with pancreatic cancer is still missing. METHODS: We used patient-specific information (demographic characteristics, diagnoses, treatments) from German statutory health insurance data covering the period 2009-2017 and hospital characteristics from the German Standardized Quality Reports. We investigated differences in survival between patients treated in hospitals with and without pancreatic cancer center certification by the German Cancer Society (GCS) using the Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox regression with shared frailty. RESULTS: The final sample included 45,318 patients with pancreatic cancer treated in 1,051 hospitals (96 GCS-certified, 955 not GCS-certified). 5,426 (12.0%) of the patients were treated in GCS-certified pancreatic cancer centers. Patients treated in certified and non-certified hospitals had similar distributions of age, sex, and comorbidities. Median survival was 8.0 months in GCS-certified pancreatic cancer centers and 4.4 months in non-certified hospitals. Cox regression adjusting for multiple patient and hospital characteristics yielded a significantly lower hazard of long-term, all-cause mortality in patients treated in GCS-certified pancreatic centers (Hazard ratio = 0.89; 95%-CI = 0.85-0.93). This result remained robust in multiple sensitivity analyses, including stratified estimations for subgroups of patients and hospitals. CONCLUSION: This robust observational evidence suggests that patients with pancreatic cancer benefit from treatment in a certified cancer center in terms of survival. Therefore, the certification of hospitals appears to be a powerful strategy to improve patient outcomes in pancreatic cancer care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04334239 ).

Concepts and Outcomes of Perioperative Therapy in Stage IA-III Pancreatic Cancer-A Cross-Validation of the National Cancer Database (NCDB) and the German Cancer Registry Group of the Society of German Tumor Centers (GCRG/ADT).

(1) Background: The aim of this study is to assess perioperative therapy in stage IA-III pancreatic cancer cross-validating the German Cancer Registry Group of the Society of German Tumor Centers-Network for Care, Quality, and Research in Oncology, Berlin (GCRG/ADT) and the National Cancer Database (NCDB). (2) Methods: Patients with clinical stage IA-III PDAC undergoing surgery alone (OP), neoadjuvant therapy (TX) + surgery (neo + OP), surgery+adjuvantTX (OP + adj) and neoadjuvantTX + surgery + adjuvantTX (neo + OP + adj) were identified. Baseline characteristics, histopathological parameters, and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. (3) Results: 1392 patients from the GCRG/ADT and 29,081 patients from the NCDB were included. Patient selection and strategies of perioperative therapy remained consistent across the registries for stage IA-III pancreatic cancer. Combined neo + OP + adj was associated with prolonged OS as compared to neo + OP alone (17.8 m vs. 21.3 m, p = 0.012) across all stages in the GCRG/ADT registry. Similarly, OS with neo + OP + adj was improved as compared to neo + OP in the NCDB registry (26.4 m vs. 35.4 m, p < 0.001). (4) Conclusion: The cross-validation study demonstrated similar concepts and patient selection criteria of perioperative therapy across clinical stages of PDAC. Neoadjuvant therapy combined with adjuvant therapy is associated with improved overall survival as compared to either therapy alone.

Survival Outcome and Prognostic Factors for Pancreatic Acinar Cell Carcinoma: Retrospective Analysis from the German Cancer Registry Group.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic acinar cell carcinoma (PACC) is a distinct type of pancreatic cancer with low prevalence. We aimed to analyze prognostic factors and survival outcome for PACC in comparison to pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), based on data from the German Cancer Registry Group. METHODS: Patients with PACC and PDAC were extracted from pooled data of the German clinical cancer registries (years 2000 to 2019). The distribution of demographic parameters, tumor stage and therapy modes were compared between PACC and PDAC. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analysis were used to delineate prognostic factors for PACC. Propensity score matching was used to compare survival between PACC and PDAC. RESULTS: There were 233 (0.44%) patients with PACC out of 52,518 patients with pancreatic malignancy. Compared to PDAC, patients with PACC were younger (median age 66 versus 70, respectively, p < 0.001) and the percentage of males was higher (66.1% versus 53.3%, respectively, p < 0.001). More patients were resected with PACC than with PDAC (56.2% versus 38.9%, respectively, p < 0.001). The estimated overall median survival in PACC was 22 months (95% confidence interval 15 to 27), compared to 12 months (95% confidence interval 10 to 13) in the matched PDAC cohort (p < 0.001). Surgical resection was the strongest positive prognostic factor for PACC after adjusting for sex, age, and distant metastases (hazard ratio 0.34, 95% confidence interval 0.22 to 0.51, p < 0.001). There was no survival benefit for adjuvant therapy in PACC. CONCLUSIONS: PACC has overall better prognosis than PDAC. Surgical resection is the best therapeutic strategy for PACC and should be advocated even in advanced tumor stages.