[Quality-assured treatment in certified breast cancer centre networks in Upper Franconia, Germany: An analysis based on data of the Bavarian Cancer Registry]. / Qualitätsgesicherte Behandlung in zertifizierten Versorgungsnetzwerken von Patientinnen mit Mammakarzinom in der Region Oberfranken: Eine Analyse auf Basis von Bayerischen Krebsregisterdaten.

OBJECTIVES: Breast cancer is the most common cancer and the most common cancer-related cause of death among women in Germany. The treatment in certified breast cancer centre networks is recommended to ensure high-quality care. The aim of the study was to determine the percentage of breast cancer patients receiving cancer treatment in certified breast cancer centre networks in Upper Franconia, Germany. METHODS: This study considered the location of treatment and the certification status of providers with regard to initial diagnosis, surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation during breast cancer care. Based on this, we compared patient characteristics receiving cancer care in certified and non-certified cancer centres and their networks. The evaluation was based on a dataset of the Bavarian Cancer Registry (4/2017-3/2022). RESULTS: The analysis included 5,545 primary tumors from a total of 5,355 patients (age: 64.5±14.2 years; 99.2% female). The percentage of patients receiving care in certified breast cancer centre networks was 78.8% for initial diagnosis, 82.6% for surgery, 79.5% for chemotherapy, and 99.6% for radiation, respectively. The weighted mean across all treatment sequences was 84.3%. Patients receiving care in certified care networks were significantly younger for three therapy sequences (p+<+0.001). In addition, an above-average proportion of patients with advanced tumor stages were treated in non-certified care networks, especially for diagnosis and surgery (p+<+0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Regarding the different treatment sequences, we found differences in the proportion of patients who received quality-assured treatment in certified breast cancer centre networks in Upper Franconia. When comparing similar analysis, the results show an average care percentage of patients receiving care in certified care networks. Furthermore, it should be ensured that patients receive comprehensive information about receiving care in certified cancer centre networks.

Complete lymph node dissection in cutaneous melanoma patients with positive sentinel lymph node: Outcome and predictors in a retrospective cohort study over 16 years.

BACKGROUND: In melanoma treatment, complete lymph node dissection (CLND) has been considered the therapeutic gold standard in patients with positive sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). This long-held approach was revised in 2017, with recent evidence questioning the therapeutic benefit of CLND in malignant melanoma (MM) therapy. In this study, we aimed to fill this knowledge gap by retrospectively analyzing the impact of CLND on MM patients' survival. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the multi-center population-based Clinical Cancer Registry at the Tumor Center Regensburg (TUDOK) database (2004-2020) to identify patients who had been diagnosed with SLN-positive MM and underwent (non)invasive management thereof. Patient cohorts were subdivided according to the treatment received (CLND and waiving CLND). Primary outcomes included overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and cumulative recurrence rate. RESULTS: We identified 1143 MM patients, of whom 126 (11.0%) had positive SLN status. CLND was waived in the majority of SLN-positive MM cases (n = 71; 56.3%), with 55 (43.7%) patients undergoing CLND. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression revealed no significant advantage for CLND patients compared to non-CLND patients in OS (HR=0.970, p = 0.915 and HR=1.295, p = 0.479, respectively), RFS (HR=1.050, p = 0.849 and HR=1.220, p = 0.544, respectively), and cumulative recurrence rate (HR=1.234, p = 0.441 and HR=1.220, p = 0.544), respectively). CONCLUSION: We found that CLND had no significant impact on patient survival and MM recurrence rate, thus corroborating the validity of current clinical guidelines.

Prioritization and resource allocation in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Recommendations for colorectal and pancreatic cancer in Germany.

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a scarcity of resources with various effects on the care of cancer patients. This paper provides an English summary of a German guideline on prioritization and resource allocation for colorectal and pancreatic cancer in the context of the pandemic. Based on a selective literature review as well as empirical and ethical analyses, the research team of the CancerCOVID Consortium drafted recommendations for prioritizing diagnostic and treatment measures for both entities. The final version of the guideline received consent from the executive boards of nine societies of the Association of Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF), 20 further professional organizations and 22 other experts from various disciplines as well as patient representatives. The guiding principle for the prioritization of decisions is the minimization of harm. Prioritization decisions to fulfill this overall goal should be guided by 1. the urgency relevant to avoid or reduce harm; 2. the likelihood of success of the diagnostic or therapeutic measure advised; and 3. the availability of alternative treatment options. In the event of a relevant risk of harm as a result of prioritization, these decisions should be made by means of a team approach. Gender, age, disability, ethnicity, origin and other social characteristics, such as social or insurance status, as well as the vehemence of a patient's treatment request and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status should not be used as prioritization criteria. The guideline provides concrete recommendations for 1. diagnostic procedures, 2. surgical procedures for cancer, and 3. systemic treatment and radiotherapy in patients with colorectal or pancreatic cancer within the context of the German healthcare system.

The effects of Phoniatric PREhabilitation in Head and Neck Cancer patients on Aspiration and Preservation of Swallowing (PREHAPS): study protocol of a monocentric prospective randomized interventional outcome-blinded trial.

BACKGROUND: Dysphagia, with its negative impact on life expectancy and quality of life, is a major side effect of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). In a typical Head and Neck Cancer Center, more than half of patients are affected. Improving treatment, and ideally prevention respectively prehabilitation, therefore seems more than desirable. METHODS: The study is planned as a monocentric, prospective, outcome-blinded, randomized interventional study comparing an advanced phoniatric-logopedic prehabilitation with a control (standard of care). Seventy patients (30 control group, 30 intervention group, 10 drop-out rate of 15%) with an initial diagnosis of invasive HNSCC and curative treatment intention will be included over a period of 17 months. In addition to the previous standard, both groups will undergo both detailed subjective assessment of swallowing function and quality of life by means of various questionnaires and objective analyses by bioelectrical impedance measurements and phoniatric endoscopic swallowing examinations. In the intervention group, risk-related nutritional counseling (face-to-face) and phoniatric-logopedic prehabilitation are provided: detailed counseling with video demonstration and exercises to strengthen and improve the range of motion of the oral, pharyngeal, and laryngeal muscles (guided by exercise diary). Controls are performed at 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months, and 9 or 12 months after the end of therapy during the regular tumor follow-up. Primary study endpoints are swallowing function and emotional distress at 6 weeks of control visit. DISCUSSION: Prehabilitation measures have already proven successful in other patient groups, e.g., transplant patients. In the field of head and neck oncology, interest in such concepts has increased significantly in recent years. However, usually, only subgroups, e.g., patients with swallowing problems after radiochemotherapy alone, are in focus. Our study aims to investigate the general benefit of prehabilitation with regard to swallowing function, which is so important for protection of aspiration and quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00029676 . International Clinical Trials Registry Platform DRKS00029676 . Registered on 19 July 2022.

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.

Clinical impact of delaying initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early triple negative breast cancer.

PURPOSE: The optimal time to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy (TTAC) for triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients is unclear. This study evaluates the association between TTAC and survival in TNBC patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study using data from a cohort of TNBC patients diagnosed between January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2018, registered in the Tumor Centre Regensburg was conducted. Data included demographics, pathology, treatment, recurrence and survival. TTAC was defined as days from primary surgery to first dose of adjuvant chemotherapy. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to evaluate impact of TTAC on overall survival (OS) and 5-year OS. RESULTS: A total of 245 TNBC patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy and valid TTAC data were included. Median TTAC was 29 days. The group receiving systemic therapy within 22 to 28 days after surgery had the most favorable outcome, with median OS of 10.2 years. Groups receiving systemic therapy between 29-35 days, 36-42 days, and more than 6 weeks after surgery had significantly decreased median survival, with median OS of 8.3 years, 7.8 years, and 6.9 years, respectively. Patients receiving therapy between 22-28 days had significantly better survival compared to those receiving therapy between 29-35 days (p = 0.043), and patients receiving therapy after 22-28 days also demonstrated significantly better survival compared to those receiving therapy after more than 43 days (p = 0.033). CONCLUSION: Timing of adjuvant systemic therapy can influence OS in TNBC patients. Efforts should be made to avoid unnecessary delays in administering chemotherapy to ensure timely initiation of systemic therapy and optimize patient outcomes.

Treatment in certified cancer centers is related to better survival in patients with colon and rectal cancer: evidence from a large German cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Certified cancer centers aim to ensure high-quality care by establishing structural and procedural standards according to evidence-based guidelines. Despite the high clinical and health policy relevance, evidence from a nation-wide study for the effectiveness of care for colorectal cancer in certified centers vs. other hospitals in Germany is still missing. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study covering the years 2009-2017, we analyzed patient data using demographic information, diagnoses, and treatments from a nationwide statutory health insurance enriched with information on certification. We investigated whether patients with incident colon or rectal cancer did benefit from primary therapy in a certified cancer center. We used relative survival analysis taking into account mortality data of the German population and adjustment for patient and hospital characteristics via Cox regression with shared frailty for patients in hospitals with and without certification. RESULTS: The cohorts for colon and rectal cancer consisted of 109,518 and 51,417 patients, respectively, treated in a total of 1052 hospitals. 37.2% of patients with colon and 42.9% of patients with rectal cancer were treated in a certified center. Patient age, sex, comorbidities, secondary malignoma, and distant metastases were similar across groups (certified/non-certified) for both colon and rectal cancer. Relative survival analysis showed significantly better survival of patients treated in a certified center, with 68.3% (non-certified hospitals 65.8%) 5-year survival for treatment of colon cancer in certified (p < 0.001) and 65.0% (58.8%) 5-year survival in case of rectal cancer (p < 0.001), respectively. Cox regression with adjustment for relevant covariates yielded a lower hazard of death for patients treated in certified centers for both colon (HR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.89-0.95) and rectal cancer (HR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.88-0.95). The results remained robust in a series of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This large cohort study yields new important evidence that patients with colorectal cancer have a better chance of survival if treated in a certified cancer center. Certification thus provides one powerful means to improve the quality of care for colorectal cancer. To decrease the burden of disease, more patients should thus receive cancer care in a certified center.

The impact of surgical-oncologic textbook outcome in patients with stage I to III pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A cross-validation study of two national registries.

BACKGROUND: Using national registries, we aimed to evaluate oncologic textbook outcomes in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients. METHODS: Patients with stage I to III pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and surgical resection from 2010 to 2020 in the US and Germany were identified using the National Cancer Database and National Cancer Registries data. The surgical-oncologic textbook outcome was defined as complete oncologic resection with no residual tumor and ≥12 harvested lymph nodes. The composite endpoint was defined as surgical-oncologic textbook outcome and receipt of perioperative systemic and/or radiation therapy. RESULTS: In total, 33,498 patients from the National Cancer Database and 14,589 patients from the National Cancer Registries were included. In the National Cancer Database, 28,931 (86%) patients had complete oncologic resection with no residual tumor, and 11,595 (79%) in the National Cancer Registries. 8,723 (26%) patients in the National Cancer Database and 556 (4%) in the National Cancer Registries had <12 lymph nodes harvested. The National Cancer Database shows 26,135 (78%) underwent perioperative therapy and 8,333 (57%) in the National Cancer Registries. Surgical-oncologic textbook outcome was achieved in 21,198 (63%) patients in the National Cancer Database and in 11,234 (77%) patients from the National Cancer Registries. 16,967 (50%) patients in the National Cancer Database and 7,878 (54%) patients in the National Cancer Registries had composite textbook outcome. Median overall survival in patients with composite textbook outcomes was 32 months in the National Cancer Database and 27 months in the National Cancer Registries (P < .001). In contrast, those with non-textbook outcomes had a median overall survival of 23 months in the National Cancer Database and 20 months in the National Cancer Registries (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Surgical-oncologic textbook outcomes were achieved in > 50% of stage I to III pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma for both the National Cancer Database and the National Cancer Registries. Failure to achieve textbook outcomes was associated with impaired survival across both registries.

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.

Assessment of the Potential of Concentrating Cancer Care in Hospitals With Certification Through Survival Analysis. / Potenzialabschätzung für die Konzentration der Versorgung von Krebspatient:innen in Kliniken mit DKG-Zertifizierung mittels Überlebenszeitanalyse.

BACKGROUND: Certification programs seek to improve the quality of complex interdisciplinary models of care such as cancer treatment through structuring the process of care in accordance with evidence-based guidelines. In Germany, the German Cancer Society (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, DKG) provides a certification programme for cancer care that covers more than one thousand centers. In a recent retrospective cohort study, it has been shown on a large, nationwide data set based on data from a statutory health insurance and selected clinical cancer registries, that there is a benefit in survival for cancer patients who have received initial treatment in hospitals certified by the DKG. Here, we deduce two absolute measures from the relative benefit in survival with the aim to quantify this benefit if all patients had been treated in a certified center. METHODS: The WiZen study analysed survival of adult patients insured by the AOK with a cancer diagnosis between 2009 and 2017 in certified hospitals vs. non-certified hospitals. Besides Kaplan-Meier-estimators, Cox regression with shared frailty was used for 11 types of cancer in total, adjusting for patient-specific information such as demographic characteristics and comorbidities as well as hospital characteristics and temporal trend. Based on this regression, we predict adjusted survival curves that directly address the certification effect. From the adjusted survivals, we calculated years of life lost (YLL) and number needed to treat (NNT), along with a difference in deaths 5 years after diagnosis. RESULTS: Based on our estimate for the 537,396 patients that were treated in a non-certified hospital included in the WiZen study, corresponding to 68,7% of the study population, we find a potential of 33,243 YLL per year in Germany based on the size of the German population as of 2017. The potential to avoid death cases 5 years from diagnosis totals 4,729 per year in Germany. CONCLUSION: While Cox regression is an important tool to evaluate the benefit that arises from variables with a potential impact on survival such as certification, its direct results are not well suited to quantify this benefit for decision makers in health care. The estimated years of life lost and the number of deaths that could have been avoided 5 years from diagnosis avoid mis-interpretation of the hazard ratios commonly used in survival analysis and should help to inform key stakeholders in health care without specialist background knowledge in statistics. Our measures, directly adressing the effect of certification, can furthermore be used as a starting point for health-economic calculations. Steering the care of cancer patients primarily to certified hospitals would have a high potential to improve outcomes.

Does the distance to the cancer center affect psycho-oncological care and emergency visits of patients with IDH wild-type gliomas? A retrospective study.

Background: Malignant isocitrate dehydrogenase wild-type (IDHwt) gliomas impose a high symptomatic and psychological burden. Wide distances from patients' homes to cancer centers may affect the delivery of psycho-oncological care. Here, we investigated, in a large brain tumor center with a rural outreach, the initiation of psycho-oncological care depending on spatial distance and impact of psycho-oncological care on emergency visits. Methods: Electronic patient charts, the regional tumor registry, and interviews with the primary care physicians were used to investigate clinical data, psycho-oncological care, and emergency unit visits. Interrelations with socio-demographic, clinical, and treatment aspects were investigated using univariable and multivariable binary logistic regression analysis and the Pearson's Chi-square test. Results: Of 491, 229 adult patients of this retrospective cohort fulfilled the inclusion criteria for analysis. During the last three months of their lives, 48.9% received at least one psycho-oncological consultation, and 37.1% visited the emergency unit at least once. The distance from the cancer center did neither affect the initiation of psycho-oncological care nor the rate of emergency unit visits. Receiving psycho-oncological care did not correlate with the frequency of emergency unit visits in the last three months of life. Conclusion: We conclude that the distance of IDHwt glioma patients' homes from their cancer center, even in a rural area, does not significantly influence the rate of psycho-oncological care.

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.

Does timing of neoadjuvant chemotherapy influence the prognosis in patients with early triple negative breast cancer?

PURPOSE: For patients with triple negative breast cancer (TNBC), the optimal time to initiate neoadjuvant chemotherapy (TTNC) is unknown. This study evaluates the association between TTNC and survival in patients with early TNBC. METHODS: A retrospective study using data from of a cohort of TNBC patients diagnosed between January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2018 registered in the Tumor Centre Regensburg was performed. Data included demographics, pathology, treatment, recurrence, and survival. Interval to treatment was defined as days from pathology diagnosis of TNBC to first dose of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). The Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods were used to evaluate the impact of TTNC on overall survival (OS) and 5 year OS. RESULTS: A total of 270 patients were included. Median follow up was 3.5 years. The 5-year OS estimates according to TTNC were 77.4%, 66.9%, 82.3%, 80.6%, 88.3%, 58.3%, 71.1% and 66.7% in patients who received NACT within 0-14, 15-21, 22-28, 29-35, 36-42, 43-49, 50-56 and > 56 days after diagnosis. Patients who received systemic therapy early had the highest estimated mean OS of 8.4 years, while patients who received systemic therapy after more than 56 days survived an estimated 3.3 years. CONCLUSION: The optimal time interval between diagnosis and NACT remains to be determined. However, starting NACT more than 42 days after diagnosis of TNBC seems to reduce survival. Therefore, it is strongly recommended to carry out the treatment in a certified breast center with appropriate structures, in order to enable an adequate and timely care.

[Register-based research and clinical studies : Possibilities, limitations and perspectives]. / Registerbasierte Forschung und klinische Studien : Möglichkeiten, Limitationen, Perspektiven.

Register-based research offers a good opportunity to generate knowledge on questions from the clinical practice. Methodologically high-quality register studies can complement clinical studies, especially for questions that cannot be answered with randomized controlled trials (RCT). The ad hoc committee on healthcare data of the German Network for Health Services Research (DNVF) has set methodological guidelines for register-based studies with a manual for methods and the use of healthcare data. The methodological advantages of both approaches can be integrated through RCTs embedded in registers. In Germany there is a diverse register landscape as shown by the register report commissioned by the Federal Ministry of Health, which, however, show a varying degree of internationally recognized quality criteria. The relevance of register-based studies for the clinical practice (e. g. guideline development) is shown in the examples of applications cited in the article. Although a lot has already been done here in Germany with existing register data, sustainable coordination and promotion of the research infrastructure and research culture, especially in international comparison are necessary.

Prognostic factors after resection of locally advanced non-functional pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasm: an analysis from the German Cancer Registry Group of the Society of German Tumor Centers.

OBJECTIVE: The available literature regarding outcome after pancreatic resection in locally advanced non-functional pNEN (LA-pNEN) is sparse. Therefore, this study evaluates the current survival outcomes and prognostic factors in after resection of LA-pNEN. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This population-based analysis was derived from 17 German cancer registries from 2000 to 2019. Patients with upfront resected non-functional non-metastatic LA-pNEN were included. RESULTS: Out of 2776 patients with pNEN, 277 met the inclusion criteria. 137 (45%) of the patients were female. The median age was 63 ± 18 years. Lymph node metastasis was present in 45%. G1, G2 and G3 pNEN were found in 39%, 47% and 14% of the patients, respectively. Resection of LA-pNEN resulted in favorable 3-, 5- and 10-year overall survival of 79%, 74%, and 47%. Positive resection margin was the only potentially modifiable independent prognostic factor for overall survival (HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.71-3.69, p value = 0.046), whereas tumor grade G3 (HR 5.26, 95% CI 2.09-13.25, p value < 0.001) and lymphangiosis (HR 2.35, 95% CI 1.20-4.59, p value = 0.012) were the only independent prognostic factors for disease-free survival. CONCLUSION: Resection of LA-pNEN is feasible and associated with favorable overall survival. G1 LA-pNEN with negative resection margins and absence of lymph node metastasis and lymphangiosis might be considered as cured, while those not fulfilling these criteria might be considered as a high-risk group for disease progression. Herein, negative resection margins represent the only potentially modifiable prognostic factor in LA-pNEN but seem to be influenced by tumor grade.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on reported cancer diagnoses in Bavaria, Germany.

PURPOSE: The aim of our study was to explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on reported cancer cases in Bavaria, Germany, by comparing pre-pandemic (March 2019 to February 2020) and pandemic period (March 2020 to February 2021). METHODS: Data on incident cases were retrieved from the Bavarian Cancer Registry (until 22nd April 2022). We included patients with malignant and in situ neoplasms reported by pathology departments with consistent reporting. We calculated the number of incident cases during the COVID-19 pandemic and the pre-pandemic period with 95% confidence intervals (CI) with Bonferroni correction (α = 0.0018) based on a Poisson approach. We stratified for malignancy (malignant, in situ), tumor site, and month of year. RESULTS: Data was available for 30 out of 58 pathology departments (51.7%) from Bavaria. Incident malignant neoplasms dropped from 42,857 cases in the pre-pandemic period to 39,980 cases in the pandemic period (- 6.7%; 95% CI - 8.7%, - 4.7%). Reductions were higher for colon, rectum, skin/melanoma as well as liver (> 10.0% reduction) and less for breast cancer (4.9% reduction). No case reductions were observed for pancreas, esophagus, ovary, and cervix. Percent changes were largest for April 2020 (- 20.9%; 95% CI - 24.7%, - 16.8%) and January 2021 (- 25.2%; 95% CI - 28.8%, - 21.5%) compared to the previous year. Declines tended to be larger for in situ compared to malignant neoplasms. CONCLUSION: Detection and diagnosis of cancer were substantially reduced during the COVID-19 pandemic. Potential effects, e.g. a stage shift of tumors or an increase of cancer mortality, need to be monitored.

[Methodology and Attribution Success of a Data Linkage of Clinical Registry Data with Health Insurance Data]. / Methodik und Zuordnungserfolg eines Linkage von Daten klinischer Krebsregister mit Abrechnungsdaten gesetzlicher Krankenkassen.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the project "Effectiveness of care in oncological centres" (WiZen), funded by the innovation fund of the federal joint committee, is to investigate the effectiveness of certification in oncology. The project uses nationwide data from the statuory health insurance AOK and data from clinical cancer registries from three different federal states from 2006-2017. To combine the strengths of both data sources, these will be linked for eight different cancer entities in compliance with data protection regulations. METHODS: Data linkage was performed using indirect identifiers and validated using the health insurance's patient ID ("Krankenversichertennummer") as a direct identifier and gold standard. This enables quantification of the quality of different linkage variants. Sensitivity and specificity as well as hit accuracy and a score addressing the quality of the linkage were used as evaluation criteria. The distributions of relevant variables resulting from the linkage were validated against the original distributions in the individual datasets. RESULTS: Depending on the combination of indirect identifiers, we found a range of 22,125 to 3,092,401 linkage hits. An almost perfect linkage could be achieved by combining information on cancer type, date of birth, gender and postal code. A total of 74,586 one-to-one linkages were achieved with these characteristics. The median hit quality for the different entities was more than 98%. In addition, both the age and sex distributions and the dates of death, if any, showed a high degree of agreement. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: SHI and cancer registry data can be linked with high internal and external validity at the individual level. This robust linkage enables completely new possibilities for analysis through simultaneous access to variables from both data sets ("the best of both worlds"): Information on the UICC stage that stems from the registries can now be combined, for instance, with comorbidities from the SHI data at the individual level. Due to the use of readily available variables and the high success of the linkage, our procedure constitutes a promising method for future linkage processes in health care research.