Introduction: In 2013, a new federal law obligated all German federal states to collect additional clinical data in population-based cancer registries as an active tool for monitoring and improving the quality of cancer care, increasing transparency and promoting health research. Now, 10 years later, the current status of the expanded cancer registration is presented, including current figures on cancer in Germany. Methods: Reporting of cancer is mandatory for physicians, and about 5 to 10 reports from different healthcare providers are expected for each case. A uniform national dataset of about 130 items is used, and reports are usually sent electronically to the registry. We used the most recent data available from cancer registries up to the year of diagnosis in 2019. We calculated incidence rates and 5-year relative survival (5YRS) for common cancers. Data on clinical outcomes and benchmarking based on quality indicators (QIs) from guidelines were provided by the Cancer Registry Schleswig-Holstein (CR SH). Results: All federal state cancer registries met most of the previously defined national eligibility criteria. Approximately 505,000 cancer cases were registered in 2019, with breast, prostate, colorectal and lung cancer being the most common cancers. The age-standardised cancer incidence has slightly decreased during the last decade. and spatial heterogeneity can be observed within Germany. 5YRS for all cancers was 67% and 63% for women and men, respectively. Therapy data for rectal cancer in 2019–2021 from the CR SH are shown as an example: 69% of the registered patients underwent surgery, mostly with curative intent (84%) and tumour-free resection (91%). Radiotherapy was given to 33% of the patients, and chemotherapy was given to 40%. Three selected QIs showed differences between involved healthcare providers. Discussion: The implementation of population-based clinical cancer registration can be considered a success. Comprehensive recording of diagnosis, treatment and disease progression and the use of registry data for quality assurance, benchmarking and feedback have been implemented.
Background: Resistance of the highly aggressive glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) to drug therapy is a major clinical problem resulting in a poor patient’s prognosis. Beside promoter methylation of the O6-methylguanine-DNA-methyltransferase (MGMT) gene the efflux transporters ABCB1 and ABCG2 have been suggested as pivotal factors contributing to drug resistance, but the methylation of ABCB1 and ABCG2 has not been assessed before in GBM. Methods: Therefore, we evaluated the proportion and prognostic significance of promoter methylation of MGMT, ABCB1 and ABCG2 in 64 GBM patient samples using pyrosequencing technology. Further, the single nucleotide polymorphisms MGMT C-56 T (rs16906252), ABCB1 C3435T (rs1045642) and ABCG2 C421A (rs2231142) were determined using the restriction fragment length polymorphism method (RFLP). To study a correlation between promoter methylation and gene expression, we analyzed MGMT, ABCB1 and ABCG2 expression in 20 glioblastoma and 7 non-neoplastic brain samples. Results: Despite a significantly increased MGMT and ABCB1 promoter methylation in GBM tissue, multivariate regression analysis revealed no significant association between overall survival of glioblastoma patients and MGMT or ABCB1 promoter methylation. However, a significant negative correlation between promoter methylation and expression could be identified for MGMT but not for ABCB1 and ABCG2. Furthermore, MGMT promoter methylation was significantly associated with the genotypes of the MGMT C-56 T polymorphism showing a higher methylation level in the T allele bearing GBM. Conclusions: In summary, the data of this study confirm the previous published relation of MGMT promoter methylation and gene expression, but argue for no pivotal role of MGMT, ABCB1 and ABCG2 promoter methylation in GBM patients’ survival.
1 July 2008 in Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
The Nationale Stillkommission was founded in Germany in 1994 to increase the acceptance of breastfeeding as the primary means of infant nutrition. Scientific studies like “Stillen und Säuglingsernährung (SuSe-Studie)”, and regional studies in Bavaria, Freiburg, Hamburg, and Berlin demonstrated breastfeeding initiation rates of 90 to 95%, but the total breastfeeding rate decreased to 25–61% after infants were 6 months old. One predictor of breastfeeding duration may be maternal motivation. The present study aimed to describe breastfeeding motivation. We analysed data collected in 2004–2008, during a previous study, the Survey of Neonates in Pomerania (SNiP). We retrieved data regarding maternal breastfeeding motivation, family environment, and socioeconomic factors. We constructed a quantitative breastfeeding-motivation score to identify factors involved in maternal breastfeeding. Ninety five percent of mothers who gave birth in the study period and area provided information in the survey. The breastfeeding initiation rate was 88.4%. Mothers’ intentions to provide exclusive breastfeeding (only breast milk, no other liquids or infant formula) increased linearly from 71.9% in 2005 to 76.8% in 2008. Women motivated to provide exclusive breastfeeding were, on average, older, primiparous, and able to deliver spontaneously more often than women with less breastfeeding motivation. Furthermore, women with no motivation to provide exclusive breastfeeding and women that intended to provide breastfeeding combined with a complementary nutrition source had visited prenatal classes less frequently, had lower levels education, had lower average incomes, had a German nationality more often, and used tobacco more often than women motivated to provide exclusive breastfeeding. Breastfeeding intentions increased during the SNiP Study. This study identified several factors that might serve for targeted breastfeeding promotion in mothers younger than 25 years, mothers with low education, and multiparous mothers or women who have received a caesarean section. Furthermore, breastfeeding motivation might be enhanced during pregnancy and/or after delivery by providing prenatal classes.
1 February 2015 in The American Journal of Cardiology
Introduction: Germany has established a national mammography screening program (MSP). Despite extensive awareness campaigns, the participation rate is only 54%, which is considerably below the European guidelines’ recommendation of at least 70%. Several reasons why women do not participate are already known. Telephone consultations along with invitation letters have improved the participation rate. Here, we analyzed the reasons for non-participation and offered barrier-specific counseling to examine which impediments can be overcome to improve participation. Study Design: In a randomized controlled trial, women who had not attended their proposed screening appointment in the MSP after a written invitation were contacted by telephone and asked why they did not attend. Barrier-specific counseling via telephone was then offered. Participation in the MSP was rechecked 3 months after counseling. Setting: 1772 women, aged 50–69 years, who had not scheduled a mammography screening after a written invitation were contacted by telephone and asked for their reasons for non-participation. Intervention: The reasons were recorded by the calling consultant and categorized either during the call or later based on their recorded statements. Afterward, the women received counseling specific to their statements and were given general information about the MSP. Main outcome measures: We categorized the reasons given, calculated their frequency, and analyzed the probabilities to which they could be successfully addressed in individual counseling. Participation rates were determined post-consultation according to the reason(s) indicated. Results: The data were analyzed in 2022. After exclusions, 1494 records were analyzed. Allowing for multiple reasons to be stated by every individual 3280 reasons for not attending were abstracted. The most frequent reason was participation in “gray screening” (51.5%), which included various breast cancer prevention measures outside the national MSP. Time problems (26.6%) and health reasons (17.3%) were also important. Counseling was most effective when women had not participated for scheduling reasons. Conclusion: Several reasons prevented women from participating in the MSP. Some reasons, such as time-related issues, could be overcome by telephone counseling, but others, like barriers resulting from fear of the examination procedure or its result, could not.