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 Centers—Network 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

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&ndash;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 &lt; 0.001) and the percentage of males was higher (66.1% versus 53.3%, respectively, p &lt; 0.001). More patients were resected with PACC than with PDAC (56.2% versus 38.9%, respectively, p &lt; 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 &lt; 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 &lt; 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

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

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

Treatment of endometrial cancer from 2000 to 2020 in Germany: a retrospective population based cohort study

Purpose Endometrial cancer (EC) is one of the most common malignancies among women in western countries. This study aimed to assess data on patient treatment in Germany throughout two decades to evaluate the development and effect of surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. Methods This retrospective registry study included 34,349 EC patients diagnosed between 2000 and 2020. Patients were classified into five risk groups. Overall survival was analyzed by Kaplan–Meier method as well as univariable and multivariable Cox regression to evaluate risk factors and treatment options. Results Over the study period, minimal invasive surgery was used more often compared to open surgery and was associated with better overall survival. Patients with advanced EC were more likely to receive multimodal therapy. Patients with intermediate risk EC had a good prognosis upon surgery, which further improved when radiotherapy was added. High-risk patients showed poorer prognosis but clearly benefited from additional radiotherapy. Survival of elderly high-risk patients with a non-endometrioid histology was improved when chemotherapy was added to surgery and radiotherapy. Conclusion Our study includes a large analysis of data from German clinical cancer registries on the care of endometrial cancer during two decades. We observed an increase of minimal invasive surgery. There is evidence that minimal invasive surgery is not inferior to open surgery. Adjuvant radio- and chemotherapy further improves survival depending on risk group and age

Concepts and Outcomes of Perioperative Therapy in Stage IA-III Pancreatic Cancer&mdash;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&mdash;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 &lt; 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